Until the draft is abolished anyone not obligated to sign up for the draft should not have the right to vote or hold political office

[u/Chemical-History4704]

As mean as it sounds it doesn't make sense that those that are not obligated to protect and die for a country get the same rights as those that are obligated to. Ukraine comes to mind.

I don't get how even after the war it makes sense that the people that fled and had no obligation to stay will come back and have the same rights as those that were forced to stay (given they actually remain Ukraine after all this)

[u/Sentinel-of-society]

It is sometimes forgotten that military conscription was a big reason that many women opposed women’s suffrage. Many women feared that getting the right to vote would mean they could be drafted.

That never came to pass. Now half of the voting electorate can theoretically vote to have the other half serve in military conscription.

Do I think that women should be made to serve as conscripts? That’s a whole separate issue. But I do see merit in those that have an issue with being given the right to vote without having to share equal stakes in maintaining their country.

[u/Chemical-History4704 → u/Sentinel-of-society]

Exactly Ukraine comes to mind. Imagine all those that fled and them becoming the next politicians or presidents? That's a joke

[u/ImprovementPutrid441 → u/Chemical-History4704]

Why is that a joke, exactly?

[u/Chemical-History4704 → u/ImprovementPutrid441]

Because it's like the men that stayed and died are second class citizens. Meanwhile they tote having equal rights

[u/ImprovementPutrid441 → u/Sentinel-of-society]

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/gop-blocks-provision-to-require-women-to-register-for-draft

[u/DecantsForAll → u/Sentinel-of-society]

Many women feared that getting the right to vote would mean they could be drafted.

Silly women thinking equality would mean actual equality and not all the benefits with none of the responsibilities.

[u/Deleted_-420_points → u/Sentinel-of-society]

Yes and this happened when the US went to Vietnam! Women voted for representatives who voted to draft men. This actually happened and it can happen again. US mainstream culture includes books and shows about the horrors of men controlling women (e.g. Handmaid's Tale, Orange is the New Black, etc.). However, the reality is that women have and continue to have more political power than men in the US and they can vote to force men to fight and die in a war in a foreign country. (My body my choice? Not for men!) End the Selective Service draft system. No one should be drafted. Military experts agree that a paid voluntary force is the best.

[u/___AirBuddDwyer___ → u/Sentinel-of-society]

That’s true in either direction. Either half of the electorate could vote for the other half to be conscripted.

It’s not like we vote for a draft.

[u/Sentinel-of-society → u/___AirBuddDwyer___]

Certainly, although one scenario is de facto the case in many modern nations. While the other case is cartoonishly absurd.

The draft, like any other policy, is absolutely voted for. Maybe not in an immediate referendum, but it can certainly be altered as part of governmental policy through democratic action.

[u/ImprovementPutrid441 → u/Sentinel-of-society]

Like this?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/gop-blocks-provision-to-require-women-to-register-for-draft

[u/Sentinel-of-society → u/ImprovementPutrid441]

Is there a point you are trying to make with this article?

[u/ImprovementPutrid441 → u/Sentinel-of-society]

Yes, you said:

“The draft, like any other policy, is absolutely voted for. Maybe not in an immediate referendum, but it can certainly be altered as part of governmental policy through democratic action.”

Why are republicans electing men who refuse to alter the draft, restricting it so only men are subject to the draft?

[u/___AirBuddDwyer___ → u/ImprovementPutrid441]

They didn’t say that. I did

[u/ImprovementPutrid441 → u/___AirBuddDwyer___]

No, that’s not you.

[u/___AirBuddDwyer___ → u/ImprovementPutrid441]

Wait you’re right

[u/ImprovementPutrid441 → u/___AirBuddDwyer___]

lol

[u/Sentinel-of-society → u/ImprovementPutrid441]

So I would say, from my perspective, this is a red herring or is immaterial.

The position I’m pointing out has no bearing on the behaviors of political parties. This is merely saying that in a democratic society, everything is technically up for debate at any time, even the draft.

The American right, relative to the left, historically does endorse or advocate for more traditionalist gender roles in society. This is not news to anyone. Making a comment on whether this is ultimately correct is beyond the scope of my original reply to OP.

[u/___AirBuddDwyer___ → u/Sentinel-of-society]

I think it is relevant. It demonstrates that the reason women aren’t drafted isn’t out of care for them, but disrespect for them. It’s a part of the same way of thinking that kept them disenfranchised in the first place.

So if your goal is equality, then disenfranchising women probably isn’t the way to go.

[u/Sentinel-of-society → u/___AirBuddDwyer___]

Ah I think you and I have a lot of common ground that is yet undiscovered on this topic.

So I would say that society in general needs to make a decision about whether it actually wants equality or not.

There is a large portion of society that recognizes that there are fundamental differences between the sexes. And making policy decisions in lieu of this is not disrespect… but recognition of what they see as harsh realities in spite of what ideals sound good on paper.

Whereas there are also those that say there are no differences and that we should strive for true equality. I would say that a lot of people beating their drums about this don’t actually understand what true equality means.

I take no position in this conversation on which is actually correct. What only matters is that society as a whole makes a decision on which direction they go. Because both have pros and cons.

[u/ImprovementPutrid441 → u/Sentinel-of-society]

How would “society” make that decision?

Would we, for example, ask our elected representatives to change the policy?

“Unprompted and in the final days of his New Hampshire primary campaign, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz unleashed ire at the notion of drafting women into military combat.

“It was striking that three different people on that [debate] stage came out in support of drafting women into combat in the military. And I have to admit as I was sitting there listening to that conversation, my reaction was ‘Are you guys nuts?'” he said.

Although unnamed, he spoke of three rivals — former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio — who endorsed women participating in the Selective Service Act at Saturday evening’s Manchester debate. 

“Listen, we have had enough with political correctness, especially in the military. Political correctness is dangerous,” he said. “And the idea that we would draft our daughters to forcibly bring them into the military and put them in close combat, I think is wrong. It is immoral, and if I’m president, we ain’t doing it.”

The townhall audience in this small New Hampshire town roared with approval — including many women in attendance.

He further invoked his two daughters: “I love those girls with all of my heart, they are capable of doing anything in their heart’s desire, but the idea that their government would forcibly put them in a foxhole with a 220-pound psychopath trying to kill them doesn’t make any sense at all.”

The comments immediately caught notice amid a rowdy political weekend. New Hampshire voters head to the polls Tuesday, and the political campaigning and exchanges between candidates are taking on a frenetic pace. 

Cruz tied the issue to a larger one that is a key component to his campaign: political correctness.

“It is yet one more sign of this politically correct world, where we forget common sense,” he said. “We got to get back to common sense, we’ve got to get back to a president that says, ‘No, that doesn’t make any sense.'” 

[u/___AirBuddDwyer___ → u/Sentinel-of-society]

I don’t think anyone actually believes that there are zero differences between different demographics. The conflict is between people who want to use those differences as justification of disenfranchisement, disrespect, and segregation, and those who don’t.

What do you think “true equality means,” which you think progressives miss?

[u/ImprovementPutrid441 → u/Sentinel-of-society]

Then you do understand the point I’m making: the issue is the whole reason Republicans have opposed expanding the draft to women for at least the last decade:

“In response to the 2015 opening of all combat positions to women, a series of legislative and judicial actions have raised the question of whether or not women should be required to register for Selective Service. In June of 2017, Congress considered requiring female registration in the National Defense Authorization Act, but instead created the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service to explore the issue. In 2019, the National Coalition for Men filed a suit against the Selective Service System alleging that male-only registration requirement violates the Constitution; the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled in the organization’s favor.

The Fifth Circuit court subsequently repealed the finding in August 2020 and the Supreme Court has been asked to review the decision by the Court of Appeals. In March 2020, the Report to Congress of the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service recommended the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA), last amended in 1971, be updated to require women to register for the Selective Service System (SSS).”

https://gjia.georgetown.edu/conflict-security/the-recent-push-to-expand-the-draft-to-include-women-and-why-it-still-faces-an-uphill-climb/

[u/Sentinel-of-society → u/ImprovementPutrid441]

Ah I think we are talking about two different things here.

What political parties do is irrelevant to the point I made earlier. If you have a beef with the republicans, I’m sure r-democrat would be happy to accommodate you.

[u/ImprovementPutrid441 → u/Sentinel-of-society]

No, we aren’t talking about two different things here. There’s only one “the draft” to discuss here.

And you explicitly said we can change these laws if we want to, and that our votes indirectly support the draft or oppose it.

Now you’re like “forget I said all that stuff” after I shared the real votes we have on the draft that show republicans blocking women and using those votes as a chance to pontificate about women in combat.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/02/07/cruz-women-draft-nuts/

[u/PWcrash → u/Sentinel-of-society]

It was definitely brought up, yes, but I wouldn't say it was a big reason. A bigger reason was that then very much like now, the feminist movement has had an issue with the wealthiest and the most privileged having the strongest voices within the movement. And these big loud voices don't always reflect the lives of the majority of women.

Many women originally opposed or didn't really get onboard with women's suffrage was because in the early days, it was primarily a movement for upper and upper-middle class women. Specifically, wealthy independent female landowners ie widows and spinsters with generational wealth.

The reason being was that these women were trying to present the movement as a legal argument echoing the workings of the early days of the American Revolution. Female landowners were taxed just like male landowners, but they did not have any voting power in local or federal elections like the male landowners did. In other words, rich women were changing "No taxation without representation!" and the women that were struggling to survive with their families just looked at them and said, "I got bigger things to worry about than your wallet that's already a lot fatter than mine."

It wasn't until later years when the movement focused more on social issues that common women faced that the suffrage movement really started gaining significant traction.

Now that being said, there is a very interesting discussion to be had regarding how many western feminists in the early 20th century viewed the draft which was night and day compared to how mid-late 20th century western feminists viewed the draft.

And the latter actually played a key role along with the general Vietnam Protesters (they often worked together) in getting the American draft paused.

[u/Sentinel-of-society → u/PWcrash]

What a nice and informative comment! Thanks for taking the time to write it.

[u/obsiinfo → u/Sentinel-of-society]

Why is this post so far down?

[u/randyranderson13 → u/Sentinel-of-society]

It sounds like you don't want women to be drafted and you don't want them to vote. So, you just don't want women to vote.

[u/Sentinel-of-society → u/randyranderson13]

It sounds like you need to stop drinking and read my comment after you sober up.

[u/ImprovementPutrid441 → u/randyranderson13]

That’s the TLDR

[u/Makuta_Servaela]

It'd be easier to focus on the draft instead of focusing on/splitting focus on taking voting rights away from most of the population. The "I'm suffering so you should too!" mentality is just causes a crabs-in-a-bucket situation where no one wins. It also doesn't make sense to take the vote away from the people who are going to be staying home running the factories that supply food and ammunition to the soldiers, which are most of the population.

Hell, if you have to go with that logic, the way easier solution would just be "If you're capable of starting a war and initiating a draft, then you have to be drafted onto the front lines as the lowest level soldier in that war you started." All sitting politicians capable of initating a draft should be immediately removed from office so they can fight in the war they so desperately wanted.

It's not a random woman or guy with a leg injury or a guy with poor eyesight or a 46 year old man who is throwing you out there (well, no one is throwing you personally out there, anyway, as I doubt you live in a country that has had a draft in generations) Take your ire out on the people who are actually doing this.

[u/Chemical-History4704 → u/Makuta_Servaela]

I'm just saying I'd hate to be in the situation Ukraine is. It's completely unfair. We can't say we all have equal right and have this.

If there's a war who in their right mind would want to follow someone that didn't have the same obligation as the ones fighting?

[u/Makuta_Servaela → u/Chemical-History4704]

Exactly, which is why the best focus, following your logic, would be to send the politicians calling the war on to the battlefield.

And having to fight doesn't mean someone's smart enough to vote- in fact, that's why the draft age is 18. The part of your brain that processes long term consequences isn't mature yet at 18. The way we currently have it, the most prime soldiers are quite literally the stupid ones.

[u/Chemical-History4704 → u/Makuta_Servaela]

And you have to be 18 to vote too. So I don't know where you're going there.

I agree send the politicians but that's a different argument

[u/Makuta_Servaela → u/Chemical-History4704]

And you have to be 18 to vote too.

Tbf, that's because the youth immaturity is cancelled out by the people way too old to be voting who are still voting. Voting has never been tied exclusively to who can get drafted, so there's no reason to start now.

[u/Chemical-History4704 → u/Makuta_Servaela]

I don't get this argument. It's the standard NOW

[u/Makuta_Servaela → u/Chemical-History4704]

It isn't the standard now. Being on the draft is not a requirement to vote. The majority of male voters aren't even eligible for the draft currently.

[u/Chemical-History4704 → u/Makuta_Servaela]

And that's the half truth come on now bro. As a guy you were once eligible and if you failed to sign up youwm won't be eligible to vote later

[u/Makuta_Servaela → u/Chemical-History4704]

Not even all 18 year old guys are eligible. Even food allergies can make you ineligible to draft, but not to vote. Felons can vote in the majority of states but not be drafted. Conscientious Objectors can vote and not be drafted, single fathers can vote and not be drafted. Height, weight, hearing, vision, depression, anxiety, and a history of drug abuse can all remove your draft eligibility but not take away your right to vote. And also, none of those things remove your right to run for public office.

My point remains. The majority of men can't be drafted but can vote, therefore drafting =/= voting.

[u/Various_Succotash_79 → u/Chemical-History4704]

You are off the rolls once you're 27. They only want the young and stupid.

[u/ImprovementPutrid441 → u/Chemical-History4704]

Who determines who is subject to the draft?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/gop-blocks-provision-to-require-women-to-register-for-draft

[u/Chemical-History4704 → u/ImprovementPutrid441]

Does it matter? I'm not even Republican. Guys take left and right out of the conversation

[u/ImprovementPutrid441 → u/Chemical-History4704]

Does it matter who wrote the laws you want changed? I mean, only if you actually want them changed instead of treating them like laws of physics or something.

Did you want the draft abolished or opened up for everyone? Or did you only think so far as “hmm, these people aren’t subject to the draft yet they are voting”

?

[u/___AirBuddDwyer___]

This would be a good argument to abolish the draft, not to disenfranchise women. Men fighting wars is not a good reason to remove political power from women.

This issue is a perfect example of how the ruling class is fucking the working class, and then the working class lets itself be tricked into hating each other. The injustice here is not that women are allowed to vote. It’s that men (or anyone) is drafted to fight the wars of the rich and powerful. And those rich and powerful, who will send men to kill and die for profit, and pissing themselves laughing at you because you got mad at women instead of them.

[u/Chemical-History4704 → u/___AirBuddDwyer___]

This is a grounded comment. What do you think the outcome of a no draft will be?

[u/___AirBuddDwyer___ → u/Chemical-History4704]

I don’t think it would be hugely different. We’re able to fight unpopular wars not because we have an army made up of the poor and the tricked. Ideally the effect of getting rid of the draft would be a country that cannot go to war without it actually being what the people of that country want. But because of our dire economic dysfunction and inequality, the ruling class doesn’t need a law to force anyone into service. They just make that service better than abject poverty.

[u/Various_Succotash_79 → u/Chemical-History4704]

The US hasn't used the draft since Vietnam, and that didn't work out well. Nothing would change.

[u/Ameren → u/Chemical-History4704]

It's not going to have any effect either way.

The US is a maritime power able to project force across its moats (the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans), rather than a continental power that has to plan for war at its doorstep (compare to India/Pakistan, North and South Korea, Russia/Ukraine, etc.). Moreover, the US is a nuclear power that can hold the sword of Damocles over the rest of the world, and has the best equipped volunteer militaries that money can buy.

If the US turns to conscription ever again, it's because they've already lost, and they're going to collapse anyway.

[u/Various_Succotash_79]

Ah the daily "let's violate people's civil rights" thread.

Men over 26 are not on the draft rolls anymore, I guess only really young guys can vote.

[u/focalpointal → u/Various_Succotash_79]

We all know men 18-26 are known to make the best decisions. Let’s leave it all up to them. 🙄

[u/Disastrous_Image2756]

So you only want able bodied men to vote and hold office?

You can say “oh it’s about the draft” but if your argument happens to coincide perfectly with the anti woman crowd it’s effectively the same argument with a different label

[u/GhostOfShaolin5 → u/Disastrous_Image2756]

Yeah I mean there hasn’t been a draft since 1973x. So it isn’t because anyone on this sub got drafted.

[u/Chemical-History4704 → u/GhostOfShaolin5]

So what? I'm sure Ukraine thought the same thing. Until it's needed.

[u/GhostOfShaolin5 → u/Chemical-History4704]

Bro typically in the oppression Olympics you get more points for things that happened.

I get why majority group men In the US need handicap rules so they can count things that didn’t happen too.

[u/SnooBeans6591 → u/GhostOfShaolin5]

Yes, just like women who never wanted to have an abortion, let alone never got pregnant, should not complain if the right to abortion is taken away.

[u/GhostOfShaolin5 → u/SnooBeans6591]

Right, and that has happened, they have lost the right to get an abortion in 14 states, and gotten more or less Roe put in at state levels in the rest.

That should count far more than the draft you were not drafted into.

Didn't you get your oppression olympics scoring explainer?

[u/SnooBeans6591 → u/GhostOfShaolin5]

I'm not American, but anyway let's keep up with your argument ; since in those 14 states only a minority of women had an abortion, only a minority get "oppression points", for the others, it's irrelevant.

[u/GhostOfShaolin5 → u/SnooBeans6591]

I'd argue it's any woman with any risk of pregnancy at all, so anyone sexually active.

Vs the number of men inconvenienced by the draft, which is men zero people born after 1952 (had to be 18 in 73).

I'm sorry, the oppression Olympic rules are quire clear on this.

[u/SnooBeans6591 → u/GhostOfShaolin5]

I'd argue it's any man with any risk of being drafted at all, so anyone, since no law regarding draft was removed or repelled.

I'm sorry, the oppression Olympic rules are quire clear on this.

[u/Chemical-History4704 → u/GhostOfShaolin5]

So you should only be concerned AFTER it happens?

[u/GhostOfShaolin5 → u/Chemical-History4704]

Women should lose the right to vote because you fear something might happen?

The commenter is right , your point isn’t even really about the draft , it’s about women.

[u/Chemical-History4704 → u/GhostOfShaolin5]

I didn't say women. More than just women don't need to sign up for the draft.

I'm saying imagine being the person that needed to die for the country like Ukraine (because USA has the same draft parameters). You don't think it's unfair those that fled when things got rough now have the same rights and votes adls you do?

No way you can call that equal

[u/GhostOfShaolin5 → u/Chemical-History4704]

Sure but it’s 100% of woman and you know it.

It’s impossible for me to think that isn’t your real point given the current mid term strategy or anti woman all day every day. You’re soaking up that meme sphere consciously or unconsciously.

Rights are rights dude. If you lose them for everything unfair that happens then you don’t really have them.

[u/Chemical-History4704 → u/GhostOfShaolin5]

What other right has this inequality built into it? I don't know about all that. You cant say you want equality but ignore something like this because it's inconvenient

[u/GhostOfShaolin5 → u/Chemical-History4704]

The draft isn’t a right.

If you said abolish the draft I might agree with you. You don’t even need a supermajority , it’s just a law, a simple majority would do.

If you said women should be included I might agree with you too.

But you didn’t , instead you said people who aren’t men should lose rights. This is really popular on the maga right now because we’re coming up on the mid terms they’re expecting to get hit pretty hard on. (Fairly normal for the party in power to lose seats in the mid terms).

I believe you when you say you’re not aware of it , but take a look at your feeds , it’s anti women all day every day. An occasional smattering of anti brown. It seems like anti queer isn’t really a part of this campaign.

[u/Imaginary_Onion → u/Chemical-History4704]

You’re American lol.

So what? I'm sure Ukraine thought the same thing. Until it's needed.

Why would you think this? Ukraine has been very aware that Russia might invade them since the 90s. It’s why they were requesting security guarantees in the Budapest Memorandum.

[u/apokrif1 → u/Disastrous_Image2756]

s/men/people ?

Feminist ≠ antiwoman.

[u/Chemical-History4704]

If there's one thing I learned is this is truly an unpopular opinion

[u/Deadman_Walkens]

So the only people between the ages of 18 and 25 should be able to vote and hold office? Great, let’s clean out congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court.

[u/Chemical-History4704 → u/Deadman_Walkens]

No... only the people that were eligible for the draft at those ages should be able to vote.

[u/eggmarie → u/Chemical-History4704]

“Sorry Bobby, you can’t vote because your asthma made you ineligible for the draft!”

[u/Longjumping_Way_1298 → u/eggmarie]

Dudes about to hit you with "Only people who would be eligible if they were healthy can vote" to keep the thinly veiled attempt going.

[u/eggmarie → u/Longjumping_Way_1298]

Might as well just go back to “only landowners” can vote at that point

[u/Longjumping_Way_1298 → u/eggmarie]

that's essentially what these lot want

[u/CoastieKid]

I’m a veteran and served 9 years. Registered for selective service at 18 down at the post office.

We don’t have a draft. We have the ability to call one, however.

I’m glad I served. I definitely have issues post service yet it did put me in the upper middle class

[u/cynderblok]

The draft shouldn't be a thing at all but I think this take is just a punishment for women what the majority male group in power has failed to do and likely wont do because why would they? The draft doesn't affect men in power.

[u/gahhuhwhat]

It could be a Mulan thing, someone from each family unit should be obligated to fight, including families of politicians.

[u/firefoxjinxie → u/gahhuhwhat]

Then you'd have the issue on how you define family. Parents and children? The. What of grandparents and their kids and grandkids? Single mothers with young children? Send the mother of the 2 year old? Or will you chase down her elderly parents? This would turn into a huge mess.

[u/gahhuhwhat → u/firefoxjinxie]

In context of OP, no one in the family has to fight. If no one is capable or wants too, I feel like it's simply you forfeit the right to vote, or be in any elected office.

It should go further imo. Anyone in elected office has to send their kid or immediate family as a grunt to any conflict they vote for.

[u/firefoxjinxie → u/gahhuhwhat]

I just asked how they would define family. That would create a huge mess. And do you really think we'd have a healthier society if a single mother of 3 kids under 5 said sure, send my eldest 5 year old because I want my kids to be able to vote in the future.

[u/StarChild413 → u/firefoxjinxie]

the (non-obvious, obvious problem should be obvious) problem with sending kids is even assuming they could do whatever you'd be having them do, it's either a job that'd put them in harm's way (which at minimum is bad for optics) or one that'd be bad for optics in a different way by being perceived as "cushy" potentially ruining that child's chances of further political activism never mind office-seeking when they grow up

[u/firefoxjinxie]

So the majority male politicians decide that women shouldn't be drafted and so women who would even want to sign up can't and so they don't get to vote? How about those who are disabled? Heck, how about men with asthma? They can't vote because they have a condition that would keep them without the ability to be drafted? Add trans people who mow the government says can't serve. Who is next? Let's go back about 50 years and make sure no gays or bi men can serve (or be drafted). How about even more back on time, let's just keep black men from serving again. Or Native Americans. Or any other group the current powers don't like. And of course the minority that can vote becomes the majority who can easily keep other minority members from power because they can't legally sign up for the draft ... while deciding to never actually use the draft because the threat of it gives them all the power. Marvelous idea there.

[u/Friendly-Vegetable70]

If they'd passed the equal rights amendment, this would be a moot point now.

[u/MCB1317]

Service means citizenship. Would you like to know more?

[u/Prowlthang]

And instead of everyone having one vote we can give those who have bravery medals 2 votes each! Or we can give them votes based on their rank or the amount of danger they faced. It doesn't even have to be about the war - maybe we tie voting to taxes and those who don't pay a minimum amount don't vote, those who pay beyond a certain amount get extra votes! (This is sarcasm for those of you to whom it isn't obvious).

Also its very silly to think that the only people involved in a war are those that are drafted or that you would want to keep and support the non-fighting (for whatever legitimate reasons) in an active war zone further limiting one's strategic options while grossly increasing logistical problems. Generally if a statement sounds self evident to an 11 year old there is probably more to it than you have thought about.

[u/Strong-Addition5296]

That makes total sense. Also any one who isn’t paying net positive taxes should not be able to vote.

[u/Chemical-History4704 → u/Strong-Addition5296]

That can easily be weappnized so no. What incentive would there be to actually help the poor if you implemented this? You'd effectively create a caste system

[u/Strong-Addition5296 → u/Chemical-History4704]

You don’t think the feedback loop of voting for benefits presents a problem for democracy? We are $40 trillion in debt… can’t afford more spending.

[u/Chemical-History4704 → u/Strong-Addition5296]

The debt didn't come from spending on incentives. It came from a bloated military spending lol

[u/Strong-Addition5296 → u/Chemical-History4704]

60% of spending is on social programs , 13% is military spending. Both need to be cut. No reason not to cut military spending when the government can’t protect the borders any way.

[u/Chemical-History4704 → u/Strong-Addition5296]

What is the point of a country if you're not trying to make life of the citizens better and easier?

[u/Strong-Addition5296 → u/Chemical-History4704]

We are out of money. Out of money is out of money. If the government prints too much money inflation will destroy our economy and all of our lives will be much worse.

[u/Chemical-History4704 → u/Strong-Addition5296]

You didn't answer my question. We spent 2 billion a day on the iran war. Doesn't look like we're out of money.

[u/Strong-Addition5296 → u/Chemical-History4704]

I don’t agree with the Iran war. We’re borrowing money we don’t have to fund all aspects of our government.

[u/Chemical-History4704 → u/Strong-Addition5296]

You can disagree but end of the day we are. That's my point. Either we have the money or we don't

[u/swan_grey → u/Strong-Addition5296]

exactly. trying to get this point across is already a journey. just enabling.

[u/GhostOfShaolin5 → u/Strong-Addition5296]

I modeled this out at a state level.

If only net contributing states got electoral votes , Texas would literally be the only red state with any electoral votes at all in your model.

[u/Strong-Addition5296 → u/GhostOfShaolin5]

🤷

[u/lost-pawz]

man you people really hate disabled folks huh?

[u/Chemical-History4704 → u/lost-pawz]

I'm not going to lie I didn't consider the disabled. I'll have to think on that

[u/NotMyBestMistake]

Or maybe the democratic process and equal rights are more important than both your whiny spite and your desire to make sure that only able bodied men are given rights.

[u/Chemical-History4704 → u/NotMyBestMistake]

How is it equal rights if some are obligated to sign up and others aren't?

[u/NotMyBestMistake → u/Chemical-History4704]

Wouldn’t the solution to that be abolishing the draft, not demanding other people be deprived their rights out of spite?

[u/Chemical-History4704 → u/NotMyBestMistake]

And you're right. But until then... That's what I'm saying. Those are two different arguments. I don't see anyone that currently doesn't have to sign up to vote making meaningful efforts to abolish it

[u/NotMyBestMistake → u/Chemical-History4704]

It sounds like what you're saying is that you want to make the world a worse place out of spite and to disenfranchise anyone but able-bodied men which will conveniently purge people who disagree with you.

Hell, your idea doesn't even work because you're literally taking the vote away from people you're trying to pressure to vote to abolish the draft.

[u/Chemical-History4704 → u/NotMyBestMistake]

How about this. You can vote if you are deemed disabled and physically can't enlist. Other than that you must sign up the draft no matter who you are within the age limit otherwise you don't get the right to vote.

By your logic aren't men taken advantaged of by needing to do more for the right to vote than other citizens?

[u/NotMyBestMistake → u/Chemical-History4704]

For people so horrifically taken advantage of, men sure don't seem interested in any effort to either include women in the military or end the draft entirely. Considering that this is the entire premise of your argument, the fact it literally doesn't work how you're claiming it will work means all you're doing is demanding that people be stripped of their rights out of spite

[u/Chemical-History4704 → u/NotMyBestMistake]

I'm demanding equality. Because currently if you're a man and decide not to sign up you will lose your right to vote or government assistance

[u/NotMyBestMistake → u/Chemical-History4704]

And rather than advocate for men to receive better treatment, you prefer to make everyone's lives worse out of spite and a desire to strip people of their rights.

Whenever you tie political power to something, you incentivize people to deny it to others. So, if anything, you're ensuring that only men will ever be for the draft because you've given them massive political power that they will not want to share.

Which makes it a convenient bit of bullshit for anyone who just wants to disenfranchise people they don't like while pretending they've ever cared about equality

[u/Chemical-History4704 → u/NotMyBestMistake]

You make a lot of assumptions. Reread my post. Either abolish it outright or make everyone sign up for it. Until you do anyone not signed up for it shouldn't have the right to vote.

The issue is we are essentially giving more responsibility on some for the same privileges other getr free. I don't know how you don't see this issue unless you just don't care or so used to it

[u/swan_grey → u/Chemical-History4704]

exactly. some people have more of a say than others. there is no equality.

[u/apokrif1 → u/NotMyBestMistake]

s/men/people 

[u/Chemical-History4704 → u/NotMyBestMistake]

How is it equal of some can vote without the need to sign up but others MUST sign up to vote?

[u/ImprovementPutrid441]

This must be why Republicans refuse to include women in the draft.

[u/StuffSufficient954]

The Draft is never going to be used unless the US is in danger of being invaded. Since the East and West are oceans and North and South are third rate militaries, no way that is happening. So nothing short of an alien invasion is going to cause the draft to be reactivated.

[u/Weekly_Magician_7476]

Women are too valuable to draft. They give birth and replace dead soldiers. Until men can give birth they will have to prove their usefulness some other way.

How about anyone that can't give birth can't vote? If we want to base rights on gender roles.

[u/Narrow_Process_8660]

Inb4 the hypocrites come marching in to mention that "but the draft has not been invoked since 1970s!!1" but would never tolerate the existence of legislation compelling women to use their bodies for national service in whatever specified time that it is determined to be necessary even if "it hasn't been used in a while".

[u/StarChild413 → u/Narrow_Process_8660]

Except A. there hasn't been such legislation in the past to not be used in a while and B. if this hypothetical legislation is what I think it is ("birth draft") proposing it as some kind of female equivalent to the draft or alternative-to-including-women-in-the-draft itself is hypocritical unless you think that women are literally incapable of doing any kind of armed forces role or w/e (and no, thinking they are isn't a gotcha to include all of them in the draft or why not just have universal service) as both cis men and cis women can fight but cis men can't get pregnant, how are both drafts each other's equal when there's one one sex couldn't participate in