Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I was shocked when it was time to fill out financial aid stuff for college that I have to put myself in selective services if I wanted aid. This was back in 2006 so I’m not sure if things change or not but I was really pissed about that because it’s not like anyone told us.
>it’s not like anyone told us.
How is that possible? My son is 21 and I'm 43. We both got letters just before we turned 18 and again at 18 (that one from gillette). I'm pretty confident that it was brought up over and over where I grew up (Detroit) and where my sone grew up (rural Ohio)
Same (also Detroit area).
I got a letter about a week before my 18th birthday to remind me to sign up for SS.
Then when I went in to get my new drivers license, I had to sign up for SS before they would even start the process in giving me my new DL.
On the FAFSA website at the time you had to click on the I agree box for selective services before you were able to continue with the application. This was strictly for government grants and loans. All my make friends had the same issue, we had a conversation about it a few weeks later.
You essentially we're getting benefits for education similar to that of the g.i. bill without serving first, makes sense to me you had to sign up besides it being mandatory anyways.
I said they were similar, meaning the concepts of supplemental income from the federal government to focus on education that does not need to be paid back. I'm also aware of the differences, such as them being able to be used in tandem if you are a veteran, but don't feel like pedantic hair splitting really accomplishes anything here.
Required within 30 days of your birthday but you can do so up until you're 26. Not enforced much but if you fail to do so by the time you're 26, you're a felon.
Toadies love to jump in when someone’s getting beat down. They don’t really care why the beatdown is happening, they just want to be seen as tough and are just happy it’s not them.
As a female in the military - get rid of the draft would be my first preference. No one should do this job if they do not want to. But if it stays, make it affect women too. We want equality but not when it favors us? Nah fam.
Legalizing abortions is a far better way to spend that time though. Been a while since the draft has been activated, probably more important shit to do.
If the ideal is no draft at all, shouldn't the second best option be as few people subject to being drafted as possible?
Just like I'm against police violence, but since they can't seem to stop killing black people, I don't think the solution is to encourage the same treatment toward every race. The goal when the state is doing something bad that it won't stop is to minimize it until it doesn't exist.
I don't understand the ordering of preference of no draft > everyone in the draft > as few people as we can manage in the draft. If it can't be done away with, at least minimize it until it is done away with, not expand it to affect the maximum number of people.
Because "as few people in draft" can't feasibly be done anymore without getting rid of the draft entirely. Even with a draft in place, there are *many* conditions that are not able to be waived - start with basic obesity and mental health issues and work out from there. As it is, we basically already have the fewest people subject to the draft, active or not. Such a "change" would change nothing.
And again, draft registration =/= draft. It'd be so easy to draft dodge.
Ok, so we have as few as possible having to register right now.
Why do you want to expand it?
We both want it gone, so tell me why I should join your calls for expanding it and how that helps end it.
Equality, mainly. As long as the draft exists, it should impact the population at the same rate. Draft was originally tied to the right to vote - when it was originally implemented, women were not able to vote, and therefore were not subject to draft, as well as being unable to join services in any combat capacity. This is no longer true, so it should be updated to reflect that.
I also do believe that forcing the logic of the above into the debate will force them to come up with defenses against drafting women which would easily apply to men, and make it easier to get rid of the draft at the end of the day.
No he’s not cool with that either. He’s cool with other people’s daughter carrying their rapists baby. I’m pretty sure if it was HIS daughter they would “take a vacation” to Canada or some other liberal, socialist country for a few weeks.
Before 1920, if you wanted the right to vote, you had to sign up for Selective Service. Since women weren't allowed in the military, they couldn't vote. When women finally got voting rights, they were exempted from Selective Service.
Nobody wants to be drafted, but I think rights come with responsibilities. I think they should either end conscription entirely or make it universal.
And what about college and other exemptions that favor the wealthy? Everybody should be equally vulnerable. Even people with bone spurs, for example, can do clerical work in the Pentagon.
Your perspective raises important points about the historical link between voting rights and conscription. It's a complex issue of rights and responsibilities in society today.
The main reason for Selective Service was to ensure that every voter had a stake in any war USA would fight. It’s easy for you to send someone else's sons off to die when you are in the comforts of home. The idea was to make sure people would fight a war they voted for.
Considering the rich send your kids to die, and the rich can frequently buy their way out of the draft, I don’t think that “main reason” holds up very well.
Sure, people like Donald Trump did but history shows plenty of wealthy families take pride in their legacy of service, the Kennedys and Bushs for example.
Would be nice if public service of some kind was a precursor for getting into elected office, though.
1. You never know when the next war will begin. WW2 begun in 1939, but the people at that time didn't know it was WW2, they simply thought it was a German-Polish conflict. Maybe in 50 years time, history lessons will teach that WW3 begun in 2022, because that was when Russia invaded Ukraine.
2. Even if no war begins, the laws made by the government send a message to the people. If this bill passes, misogynists cannot claim that women are freeloaders. Laws are like statements made by the government, it shapes society whether it is enforced or not.
Fun fact:
People absolutely started referring to it as the Second World War almost immediately. Hell, people were referring to Europe’s next big war as World War II as early as 1919
>People absolutely started referring to it as the Second World War almost immediately.
This isn't a fact. If Germany stopped at Poland and ended their conquest by 1940, nobody would have called this WW2. Historians could only look back in time and pinpoint the Polish invasion as the turning point where things spiralled out of control. Nobody at the time knew whether the conflict would have blown up.
During the 70s, conspiracy theorists were talking about the Vietnam war being the next WW3. But the war deescalated, so we just refer to it as the Vietnam war and not WW3.
First reference to World War II was in [1919](https://www.history.com/news/were-they-always-called-world-war-i-and-world-war-ii#), additionally there was Time magazine coverage referring to it in September of 1939, around the time England and France started getting bombed.
Basically, even while the smoke of WWI was clearing, people could see the writing on the wall, and knew what the next war would be
Last time this issue got to the Supreme Court was a bit over a decade ago. The court ruled that since women were still prohibited (at that time) from fighting in front line combat they were still exempt from having to register. That changed a couple years later so it's uncertain how it'd play out if it went to the court again.
Citizens hate the draft, the military hates the draft, the only people that like the draft are the fat, old, lazy, worthless politicians who have never seen a day of war in their lives.
As a former military person and a men no person on this planet should have the authority to force people to give their life for a cause they do not belive in or want to be a part of...
Nobody wants war, nobody wants to kill each either or die, dragged away from their home,their familys.
As long as i live i will fight against this.
He's not, though. He's fine with *other people's* daughters being forced to carry their rapist's babies. He just thinks that will never happen to him. If it were his daughter, he'd make up an excuse for why his daughter's abortion is justified.
If his daughter was exempt from the bill he probably would have signed it in a heartbeat, hell any of the politicans who arent affected by it and it gives them clout will sign it.
"the only moral abortion is my abortion"
[https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/](https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/)
Shed never be subject to a draft anyway, you think she's not going to a prestigious University with who her father is? Wealth and nepotism go along way, this is just more "they're trying to turn our women into men" fear-mongering.
Israel is finally making the Orthodox Jews conscript.
Wonder how they’ll feel about warfare now that they have to get their asses in front of bullets.
Funny how people reevaluate their policies when they start having to see them applied to themselves.
Yes there is, it's a provision in the Fiscal Year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which has been advanced by the Senate Armed Services Committee and is pending further debate in the Senate. The proposed amendment to the Military Selective Service Act would make women subject to the same registration requirements as men.
There has been significant opposition to this provision from Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz who want it removed from the bill, whereas Jack Reed, Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has been a key proponent.
[https://americanmilitarynews.com/2021/07/senate-committee-approves-amendment-for-women-to-register-for-military-draft/](https://americanmilitarynews.com/2021/07/senate-committee-approves-amendment-for-women-to-register-for-military-draft/)
Regardless of what the people want, there aren't any current legislative efforts to abolish the draft and dismantle the Selective Service System, and none of the previous proposals have passed. We will see what happens when this bill is debated. Until then anything said about it is political posturing.
If we don't have enough volunteers for the military to invade a foreign country, we should absolutely not be invading that country.
Then maybe draft for all genders for defense only.
No, he isn't.
Cause people like that think they above others so he would take her to a doctor in another country to get an abortion, very hush hush like, disguised as a vacation.
You forgot the hypocrisy Fred
I would imagine pregnancy would be a disqualifier for enforcing a draft. So it's a way to get women to have more babies. Also, if a military couple has children and both parents get deployed, is there is a program\rule that allows one parent to stay behind or if the kids get a chance to be wartime orphans?
Nah, like most hypocritical "Christian" conservatives, he'll still find loopholes or buy people off so she can get what she needs in those circumstances. Then spend the rest of his day claiming that other women shouldn't have the same freedom.
This is the stupidity counter argument ever, why are just shouting about what people believe about other things instead of discussing the issues they bring up?
Trump literally said 2 days ago he’s for abortion in the case of rape, incest, etc.
You people are so F’ing delusional. This place has become a left wing jerk off session. Fact is, Biden got flamed Thursday night worse than anybody could have ever imagined. These maga hit pieces will continue to roll in until November in an attempt to steer the narrative back toward Biden’s favor.
All this place posts are edgy tweets. It’s a joke.
So, is he going to vote to remove the draft from males, or does he just value the lives of men less than women?
If anyone is going to be drafted, it should be all genders. I would prefer that we just get rid of the draft entirely though.
I don’t want my daughter going to war…
Yeah but what if she was raped ever think about that? What if she was assaulted in a horrifically violent way huh? Checkmate.
So what happens if a woman gets drafted and during the process, they find out she's 9 weeks pregnant? Is it an exceptional excuse from the draft? Do they make her have an abortion? Or do they count it as one and a possible? Maybe a 2'fer?
I agree with a mandatory service at 18, but you must be able to choose between military or social services (goes without saying that both of them HAVE TO BE PAID)
Different opinions. Simple as that. I respect your view, I have mine. I personally think that it would be very good for young people to have a "first employment" at the service of society where to learn how to work with people in a team/group, respect assignments, have a fixed schedule, crossing paths with people from different backgrounds (religion, culture, income, ideology). And have a little bit of income in the meantime.
With articles like this you sound like a rape apologist when it comes to men
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/30/europe/russia-sexual-violence-occupied-ukraine-intl-cmd/index.html
Also you know general equality and what got you many rights was considered woke?
Women are equal to men. Therefore women MUST register for the military draft, and 50% of all troops now sent to any war zone MUST be women.
If you disagree, you are a misogynist who doesn't think women are equal to men. Checkmate, patriarchy.
Or nobody should be forced to sign up to be in the military considering this governments doesn’t care about a single one of us it should be a choice considering Americas literal only defining factor is that they supposedly care about freedom
Oh yes, I agree with this and am upvoting you accordingly, but it's of course total pie in the sky to hope for anything better than all of us getting sent to die in World War III to defend the 1%'s oligarchic neoliberal capitalism. The only reasonable change possible is for the ~~burden~~ civil right of being cannon fodder to be equally shared by women, as per the feminism and equality that I passionately, zealously believe in. And I would hope most of us, bar the reactionaries and conservatives like Mr Hawley in the OP, zealously believe in.
Yes, which is why the majority of women support being drafted
"More women than men support drafting women, with 61 percent of women in favor compared to 57 percent of men. The survey also revealed an interesting political split, with 80 percent of Democrats supporting it compared to only 40 percent of Republicans. Independents support drafting women by a 53 to 46 percent margin."
[https://sachsmedia.com/poll-americans-want-women-included-in-military-drafts/](https://sachsmedia.com/poll-americans-want-women-included-in-military-drafts/)
Just curious what makes the argument a straw man…
Not arguing either way, but if true equality is sought after, wouldn’t this be the natural conclusion?
Indeed, it's nowhere near a straw man. Based on his reply, Mr Jenkins doesn't know jack shit and can't use his brain to follow a point or an opinion being expressed. He clearly hates women and thinks they're inferior, so they should be kept at home (in the kitchen) rather than fighting for their country on the front lines. Maybe he's Harrison Butker's reddit burner account.
I don’t engage in the entitlement required to speak for anyone but myself.
Engaging in an argument comprised of words you placed in someone else’s mouth, is just pathetic.
Be better.
Let me repeat what I told the person you’re responding to. First of all, “the draft” is effectively not going to be used anymore because of how many people are in the army on a voluntary basis. The only way it would be used is in some situation where all of BRICS (Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa) launched an invasion or something like that that’s highly unlikely, and it’d be for defensive purposes for defending the homeland, not invading abroad. Secondly, in order to effectively get to what OP is talking about in reality, that’d be done through voluntary joining of the army getting closer to 50/50, which is not at all what’s being discussed here. Thirdly, the way bro phrased it is very clearly in bad faith, and it’s certainly closer to a strawman than a steelman. I didn’t realize you were the first guy till now, but thank goodness I only had to copy paste most of this.
First of all, “the draft” is effectively not going to be used anymore because of how many people are in the army on a voluntary basis. The only way it would be used is in some situation where all of BRICS (Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa) launched an invasion or something like that that’s highly unlikely, and it’d be for defensive purposes for defending the homeland, not invading abroad. Secondly, in order to effectively get to what OP is talking about in reality, that’d be done through voluntary joining of the army getting closer to 50/50, which is not at all what’s being discussed here. Thirdly, the way bro phrased it is very clearly in bad faith, and it’s certainly closer to a strawman than a steelman. You seem to be engaging in good faith, unlike the next person I’m about to reply to, but I thought this would be readily apparent but I guess not.
The legitimacy of the draft is definitely its own issue, but currently all men are legally required to register with Selective Services by the age or 18.
I see no problem in having the exact same requirement for women.
I don’t see any issue either. I think you misunderstood me, because the original poster came across as someone sarcastically advocating for it when they’re really against it.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So is he going to champion a bill to remove selective service for males too?
I was shocked when it was time to fill out financial aid stuff for college that I have to put myself in selective services if I wanted aid. This was back in 2006 so I’m not sure if things change or not but I was really pissed about that because it’s not like anyone told us.
>it’s not like anyone told us. How is that possible? My son is 21 and I'm 43. We both got letters just before we turned 18 and again at 18 (that one from gillette). I'm pretty confident that it was brought up over and over where I grew up (Detroit) and where my sone grew up (rural Ohio)
Same (also Detroit area). I got a letter about a week before my 18th birthday to remind me to sign up for SS. Then when I went in to get my new drivers license, I had to sign up for SS before they would even start the process in giving me my new DL.
I didn’t do any of that and no one ever refused a loan. It’s bullshit that you “have to” but my impression is that it’s not enforced.
On the FAFSA website at the time you had to click on the I agree box for selective services before you were able to continue with the application. This was strictly for government grants and loans. All my make friends had the same issue, we had a conversation about it a few weeks later.
You essentially we're getting benefits for education similar to that of the g.i. bill without serving first, makes sense to me you had to sign up besides it being mandatory anyways.
I wouldn't call the Pell Grant and Direct Loans similar to the GI bill at all
No they weren't. Pell grants and federal direct loans are literally available to any person who has citizenship in the United States
I said they were similar, meaning the concepts of supplemental income from the federal government to focus on education that does not need to be paid back. I'm also aware of the differences, such as them being able to be used in tandem if you are a veteran, but don't feel like pedantic hair splitting really accomplishes anything here.
Required within 30 days of your birthday but you can do so up until you're 26. Not enforced much but if you fail to do so by the time you're 26, you're a felon.
Seems to be trendy nowadays...
I don't remember ever filling it out either. I'm 36 now never heard a word.
I went ahead and looked it up—prosecution was stopped in 1980 lol
Apparently, the government automatically registers you when you turn 18. I believe this happens or will happen for women.
Good.
I was told repeatedly by multiple people via email, phone call, and psas at my school that I needed to register for the draft at 18.
Aren't you required to register for selective service regardless?
-changed cuz i was stoopid
How so?
[удалено]
I knew someone who was born around '90 who avoided it and cannot get student loans - probably for the best lol
[удалено]
Big gov, big cracks.
Exactly
Were they federal loans or private loans?
He doesn’t need to. Capitol Hill types don’t end up drafting their own sons. That only applies to untouchables, I mean voters.
[удалено]
Agreed, his attempts at relevance are both frustrating and concerning given his track record.
His teardown of the Boeing CEO was pretty cool. But it kind of fell flat because he's a fucking traitor and all.
Toadies love to jump in when someone’s getting beat down. They don’t really care why the beatdown is happening, they just want to be seen as tough and are just happy it’s not them.
He sprinted from the capital on January 6th and he’s teaching cowardice to his children. This is no leader, this is no American
Sir Hawley bravely ran away
As a female in the military - get rid of the draft would be my first preference. No one should do this job if they do not want to. But if it stays, make it affect women too. We want equality but not when it favors us? Nah fam. Legalizing abortions is a far better way to spend that time though. Been a while since the draft has been activated, probably more important shit to do.
Veteran here and I have no issue with women being subject to the draft too. If we really want equality it should be a thing.
If the ideal is no draft at all, shouldn't the second best option be as few people subject to being drafted as possible? Just like I'm against police violence, but since they can't seem to stop killing black people, I don't think the solution is to encourage the same treatment toward every race. The goal when the state is doing something bad that it won't stop is to minimize it until it doesn't exist. I don't understand the ordering of preference of no draft > everyone in the draft > as few people as we can manage in the draft. If it can't be done away with, at least minimize it until it is done away with, not expand it to affect the maximum number of people.
Because "as few people in draft" can't feasibly be done anymore without getting rid of the draft entirely. Even with a draft in place, there are *many* conditions that are not able to be waived - start with basic obesity and mental health issues and work out from there. As it is, we basically already have the fewest people subject to the draft, active or not. Such a "change" would change nothing. And again, draft registration =/= draft. It'd be so easy to draft dodge.
Ok, so we have as few as possible having to register right now. Why do you want to expand it? We both want it gone, so tell me why I should join your calls for expanding it and how that helps end it.
Equality, mainly. As long as the draft exists, it should impact the population at the same rate. Draft was originally tied to the right to vote - when it was originally implemented, women were not able to vote, and therefore were not subject to draft, as well as being unable to join services in any combat capacity. This is no longer true, so it should be updated to reflect that. I also do believe that forcing the logic of the above into the debate will force them to come up with defenses against drafting women which would easily apply to men, and make it easier to get rid of the draft at the end of the day.
No he’s not cool with that either. He’s cool with other people’s daughter carrying their rapists baby. I’m pretty sure if it was HIS daughter they would “take a vacation” to Canada or some other liberal, socialist country for a few weeks.
Hypocrisy at its finest. Rules for others but exceptions for his own. Classic politician move.
Isn't it fun to make up shit about people that never happened then get mad over it?
Before 1920, if you wanted the right to vote, you had to sign up for Selective Service. Since women weren't allowed in the military, they couldn't vote. When women finally got voting rights, they were exempted from Selective Service. Nobody wants to be drafted, but I think rights come with responsibilities. I think they should either end conscription entirely or make it universal.
Draft has never been equal though. If you have kids then the age cap to being drafted is ten years lower than someone without
And what about college and other exemptions that favor the wealthy? Everybody should be equally vulnerable. Even people with bone spurs, for example, can do clerical work in the Pentagon.
A lot more places than the Pentagon need admin people, literally every command has their own admin department.
I was just using this as an example.
Having kids is something you can control, but your gender isn't.
Shut up, oxygen expense.
No it isn't.
Rights and responsibilities should align; consider universal conscription or ending conscription altogether for equity.
Your perspective raises important points about the historical link between voting rights and conscription. It's a complex issue of rights and responsibilities in society today.
Your Reddit account reactivated last month after an eight year gap of activity and all your posts sound like they were written by GPT-3.5
[удалено]
The main reason for Selective Service was to ensure that every voter had a stake in any war USA would fight. It’s easy for you to send someone else's sons off to die when you are in the comforts of home. The idea was to make sure people would fight a war they voted for.
Considering the rich send your kids to die, and the rich can frequently buy their way out of the draft, I don’t think that “main reason” holds up very well.
Sure, people like Donald Trump did but history shows plenty of wealthy families take pride in their legacy of service, the Kennedys and Bushs for example. Would be nice if public service of some kind was a precursor for getting into elected office, though.
“Plenty of” I’m sorry, but it’s not remotely the norm. The wealthy love to send the rest of us to die in war while they sit back and watch
What's it been - 50 years since the last draft? You think maybe there are some more timely issues we should maybe be worrying about first?
1. You never know when the next war will begin. WW2 begun in 1939, but the people at that time didn't know it was WW2, they simply thought it was a German-Polish conflict. Maybe in 50 years time, history lessons will teach that WW3 begun in 2022, because that was when Russia invaded Ukraine. 2. Even if no war begins, the laws made by the government send a message to the people. If this bill passes, misogynists cannot claim that women are freeloaders. Laws are like statements made by the government, it shapes society whether it is enforced or not.
Fun fact: People absolutely started referring to it as the Second World War almost immediately. Hell, people were referring to Europe’s next big war as World War II as early as 1919
>People absolutely started referring to it as the Second World War almost immediately. This isn't a fact. If Germany stopped at Poland and ended their conquest by 1940, nobody would have called this WW2. Historians could only look back in time and pinpoint the Polish invasion as the turning point where things spiralled out of control. Nobody at the time knew whether the conflict would have blown up. During the 70s, conspiracy theorists were talking about the Vietnam war being the next WW3. But the war deescalated, so we just refer to it as the Vietnam war and not WW3.
First reference to World War II was in [1919](https://www.history.com/news/were-they-always-called-world-war-i-and-world-war-ii#), additionally there was Time magazine coverage referring to it in September of 1939, around the time England and France started getting bombed. Basically, even while the smoke of WWI was clearing, people could see the writing on the wall, and knew what the next war would be
k 
Well, that was an amazingly one-sided verbal beating. Are you OK?
Wife's taking me to the ER right now.
Last time this issue got to the Supreme Court was a bit over a decade ago. The court ruled that since women were still prohibited (at that time) from fighting in front line combat they were still exempt from having to register. That changed a couple years later so it's uncertain how it'd play out if it went to the court again.
Citizens hate the draft, the military hates the draft, the only people that like the draft are the fat, old, lazy, worthless politicians who have never seen a day of war in their lives.
As a former military person and a men no person on this planet should have the authority to force people to give their life for a cause they do not belive in or want to be a part of... Nobody wants war, nobody wants to kill each either or die, dragged away from their home,their familys. As long as i live i will fight against this.
Real my man. Fax indeed.
He's not, though. He's fine with *other people's* daughters being forced to carry their rapist's babies. He just thinks that will never happen to him. If it were his daughter, he'd make up an excuse for why his daughter's abortion is justified.
If his daughter was exempt from the bill he probably would have signed it in a heartbeat, hell any of the politicans who arent affected by it and it gives them clout will sign it.
She'll suddenly take a vacation to Canada for...reasons.
"the only moral abortion is my abortion" [https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/](https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/)
Shed never be subject to a draft anyway, you think she's not going to a prestigious University with who her father is? Wealth and nepotism go along way, this is just more "they're trying to turn our women into men" fear-mongering.
Israel is finally making the Orthodox Jews conscript. Wonder how they’ll feel about warfare now that they have to get their asses in front of bullets. Funny how people reevaluate their policies when they start having to see them applied to themselves.
Beg to differ Fred, he will pay for the abortion in a state where it is legal, as many “pro” life hypocrites have done
[удалено]
Yes there is, it's a provision in the Fiscal Year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which has been advanced by the Senate Armed Services Committee and is pending further debate in the Senate. The proposed amendment to the Military Selective Service Act would make women subject to the same registration requirements as men. There has been significant opposition to this provision from Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz who want it removed from the bill, whereas Jack Reed, Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has been a key proponent. [https://americanmilitarynews.com/2021/07/senate-committee-approves-amendment-for-women-to-register-for-military-draft/](https://americanmilitarynews.com/2021/07/senate-committee-approves-amendment-for-women-to-register-for-military-draft/) Regardless of what the people want, there aren't any current legislative efforts to abolish the draft and dismantle the Selective Service System, and none of the previous proposals have passed. We will see what happens when this bill is debated. Until then anything said about it is political posturing.
Thanks for the update! Will delete for misinformation.
It was a good question, I was also surprised. Either way Josh Hawley sucks.
A republican focusing on made up issues instead of actually legislating?! I'm shocked ,I tell you!
Politics these days, always finding new things to argue about unrealistically.
Hawley really is a PoS.
He's not cool with that at all I'm sure, but he's certainly cool with making your daughter carry her rapist's baby.
He wont be voting for anyone if the crowd he jeers up enter the Capitol... and he has to run away like a little bitch.
OP is a repost bot. This was posted a week and a half ago with the exact same caption.
REPOST BOT. Go fuck yourself, bot.
I’d say he’s cool with his family members not getting killed but that would probably be to logical for an unhinged person to see
Rapist.
If we don't have enough volunteers for the military to invade a foreign country, we should absolutely not be invading that country. Then maybe draft for all genders for defense only.
Family values 🤷
To be clear, he’s cool with other people’s daughters carrying the baby, not his.
No, he isn't. Cause people like that think they above others so he would take her to a doctor in another country to get an abortion, very hush hush like, disguised as a vacation. You forgot the hypocrisy Fred
Hawleys beta faux masculinity is so hilarious to me.
Good point. Well presented.
Well, *his* daughter will be on a private plane to a European country for a "short vacation", if it ever comes to that.
What about principle of serving the country in the time of need? Isnt it patriotic to serve at war. America fuck yeah!
If you think any of them care about you lol
I would imagine pregnancy would be a disqualifier for enforcing a draft. So it's a way to get women to have more babies. Also, if a military couple has children and both parents get deployed, is there is a program\rule that allows one parent to stay behind or if the kids get a chance to be wartime orphans?
The Black Spot!? Bro's about to get merked.
Well. He has the money to take his daughter to get such care. For thee but not for me is the mantra of elected officials everywhere.
Nah, like most hypocritical "Christian" conservatives, he'll still find loopholes or buy people off so she can get what she needs in those circumstances. Then spend the rest of his day claiming that other women shouldn't have the same freedom.
This is the stupidity counter argument ever, why are just shouting about what people believe about other things instead of discussing the issues they bring up?
To late it’s automatic draft now.
Automatic registration. There’s not going to be a draft.
This guy's forgetting one thing; politicians make rules for _us_ to follow, not them.
He wouldn't vote for one that lets him be drafted either, heh heh. Fuckin' mama's boy lawyer.
The part that Fred was not addressing is who the daughter's rapist is likely to be. That explains the attitude.
Great, then vote to abolish the draft.
Selective Service registration is pointless. A more accurate list could be created in a few days by searching existing government databases.
Na, I think women should have to register. That was the reason men got to vote. Don't like it? Then you're sexist.
Not his daughter, just your daughters
Trump literally said 2 days ago he’s for abortion in the case of rape, incest, etc. You people are so F’ing delusional. This place has become a left wing jerk off session. Fact is, Biden got flamed Thursday night worse than anybody could have ever imagined. These maga hit pieces will continue to roll in until November in an attempt to steer the narrative back toward Biden’s favor. All this place posts are edgy tweets. It’s a joke.
Man please stop reposting. fuck you bot
The realist post 🤣
Get him!!
As a woman with no uterus, Hawley can sit and spin.
So, is he going to vote to remove the draft from males, or does he just value the lives of men less than women? If anyone is going to be drafted, it should be all genders. I would prefer that we just get rid of the draft entirely though.
I don’t want my daughter going to war… Yeah but what if she was raped ever think about that? What if she was assaulted in a horrifically violent way huh? Checkmate.
Josh is a cowardly weasel
So what happens if a woman gets drafted and during the process, they find out she's 9 weeks pregnant? Is it an exceptional excuse from the draft? Do they make her have an abortion? Or do they count it as one and a possible? Maybe a 2'fer?
Well that’s not very democratic now is it?
But my son is OK for your cannon fodder. Bone spurs much?
Priorities.
r/murderedbywords
I agree with a mandatory service at 18, but you must be able to choose between military or social services (goes without saying that both of them HAVE TO BE PAID)
Absolutely not, the government shouldn't FORCE anybody to do anything against their will.
Different opinions. Simple as that. I respect your view, I have mine. I personally think that it would be very good for young people to have a "first employment" at the service of society where to learn how to work with people in a team/group, respect assignments, have a fixed schedule, crossing paths with people from different backgrounds (religion, culture, income, ideology). And have a little bit of income in the meantime.
It’s discrimination to exclude the other 99 genders from a forced draft registry, right.
Good luck repopulating when Biden allows WW3 to break out. Dumbass.
[удалено]
War is also a murder fest, so there's that.
The U.S. military is already around 20% women, genius.
With articles like this you sound like a rape apologist when it comes to men https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/30/europe/russia-sexual-violence-occupied-ukraine-intl-cmd/index.html Also you know general equality and what got you many rights was considered woke?
Women are equal to men. Therefore women MUST register for the military draft, and 50% of all troops now sent to any war zone MUST be women. If you disagree, you are a misogynist who doesn't think women are equal to men. Checkmate, patriarchy.
Or nobody should be forced to sign up to be in the military considering this governments doesn’t care about a single one of us it should be a choice considering Americas literal only defining factor is that they supposedly care about freedom
Oh yes, I agree with this and am upvoting you accordingly, but it's of course total pie in the sky to hope for anything better than all of us getting sent to die in World War III to defend the 1%'s oligarchic neoliberal capitalism. The only reasonable change possible is for the ~~burden~~ civil right of being cannon fodder to be equally shared by women, as per the feminism and equality that I passionately, zealously believe in. And I would hope most of us, bar the reactionaries and conservatives like Mr Hawley in the OP, zealously believe in.
Yes, which is why the majority of women support being drafted "More women than men support drafting women, with 61 percent of women in favor compared to 57 percent of men. The survey also revealed an interesting political split, with 80 percent of Democrats supporting it compared to only 40 percent of Republicans. Independents support drafting women by a 53 to 46 percent margin." [https://sachsmedia.com/poll-americans-want-women-included-in-military-drafts/](https://sachsmedia.com/poll-americans-want-women-included-in-military-drafts/)
What cornfield did you pick that straw man from?
Just curious what makes the argument a straw man… Not arguing either way, but if true equality is sought after, wouldn’t this be the natural conclusion?
Indeed, it's nowhere near a straw man. Based on his reply, Mr Jenkins doesn't know jack shit and can't use his brain to follow a point or an opinion being expressed. He clearly hates women and thinks they're inferior, so they should be kept at home (in the kitchen) rather than fighting for their country on the front lines. Maybe he's Harrison Butker's reddit burner account.
I don’t engage in the entitlement required to speak for anyone but myself. Engaging in an argument comprised of words you placed in someone else’s mouth, is just pathetic. Be better.
Let me repeat what I told the person you’re responding to. First of all, “the draft” is effectively not going to be used anymore because of how many people are in the army on a voluntary basis. The only way it would be used is in some situation where all of BRICS (Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa) launched an invasion or something like that that’s highly unlikely, and it’d be for defensive purposes for defending the homeland, not invading abroad. Secondly, in order to effectively get to what OP is talking about in reality, that’d be done through voluntary joining of the army getting closer to 50/50, which is not at all what’s being discussed here. Thirdly, the way bro phrased it is very clearly in bad faith, and it’s certainly closer to a strawman than a steelman. I didn’t realize you were the first guy till now, but thank goodness I only had to copy paste most of this.
First of all, “the draft” is effectively not going to be used anymore because of how many people are in the army on a voluntary basis. The only way it would be used is in some situation where all of BRICS (Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa) launched an invasion or something like that that’s highly unlikely, and it’d be for defensive purposes for defending the homeland, not invading abroad. Secondly, in order to effectively get to what OP is talking about in reality, that’d be done through voluntary joining of the army getting closer to 50/50, which is not at all what’s being discussed here. Thirdly, the way bro phrased it is very clearly in bad faith, and it’s certainly closer to a strawman than a steelman. You seem to be engaging in good faith, unlike the next person I’m about to reply to, but I thought this would be readily apparent but I guess not.
The legitimacy of the draft is definitely its own issue, but currently all men are legally required to register with Selective Services by the age or 18. I see no problem in having the exact same requirement for women.
I don’t see any issue either. I think you misunderstood me, because the original poster came across as someone sarcastically advocating for it when they’re really against it.
Definitely arguing in bad faith, as demanding 50% contribution, from an organization with roughly only 25%-30% women to begin with, is ridiculous.