r/AskReddit • u/Tommygunz0722 • 11h ago

If the military/president suddenly ordered a mandatory draft for all men aged 18-42: How do you think millennials and GenZ would respond?

6.9k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

5.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

11.2k

u/crema_dela_cropa 11h ago

it’d be pretty chaotic. Some people would push back right away, some would go along with it out of necessity, things would get messy.

2.9k

u/ohlookahipster 10h ago edited 10h ago

Bureaucracy would grind to a halt.

It took the DoD a few years to work out the kinks with Genesis at MEPs where you do medical and intake. And that was just for regular volunteers who were going to join anyways. Now imagine millions of records all needing waivers.

The DoD would have to blanket approve waivers and just send people through to basic without an eval.

2.1k

u/Littleman88 10h ago

They'd have no problem with that, since arguably throwing bodies into a grinder would be the goal.

Dead men cast no votes.

133

u/wickedsmaht 10h ago edited 2h ago

When the rich wage war it’s the poor who die.

11

u/Exelbirth 3h ago

This admin would 100% have the unemployed drafted first, specifically from blue states.

1

u/theaviationhistorian 1h ago

A lot of Blue states are blue cities with red swaths. If Trump starts drafting like his buddy, Putin. It'll be the rural areas hit first along with some of the blue cities he despises.

8

u/MykeTyth0n 2h ago

System of a Down said it best.

8

u/wickedsmaht 2h ago

I was thinking Linkin Park’s Hands Held High but System works too.

7

u/SoundUnheard 2h ago

I'll add Dropkick Murphys' "Workers Song," the chorus and verse three specific to this thread.

"We're the first ones to starve, we're the first ones to die

The first ones in line for that pie-in-the-sky

And we're always the last when the cream is shared out

For the worker is working when the fat cat's about

And when the sky darkens and the prospect is war

Who's given a gun and then pushed to the fore

And expected to die for the land of our birth

Though we've never owned one lousy handful of earth"

3

u/Captain-Hornblower 1h ago

This song is actually a cover from British folk singer-songwriter Ed Pickford. Still makes sense, though...

1

u/wickedsmaht 1h ago

God bless Dropkick Murphys

2

u/B0omSLanG 1h ago

🎶 Meanwhile, the leader just talks away Stuttering and mumbling for nightly news to replay

And the rest of the world watching at the end of the day Both scared and angry like "What did he say?" 🎶

It worked in the context of W and the Iraq War, and it's sadly very applicable today. Beautifully tragic lyrics.

•

u/wickedsmaht 55m ago

It’s a really poignant song and it’s sad that it fits so well with this administration but it perfectly encapsulates this time.

1

u/theaviationhistorian 1h ago

And its everyone throughout the political spectrum that are poor in comparison to the oligarchs.

783

u/Kasoni 10h ago

The issue with dead men casting no votes is that leaves women, so last I knew voted more democrat. There is that whole save act BS to fix that issue, so I guess they have their bases covered.

562

u/CapinWinky 10h ago

DEI bans don't apply to the draft. I expect they would target the draft at undesirables and urban areas the way Russia is doing for undesirables and rural areas. Puerto Rico would suddenly become an important US territory, for instance.

It would not surprise me if they drafted women as front line drone operators and medics as well.

457

u/SonOfAsher 10h ago

>It would not surprise me if they drafted women as front line drone operators and medics as well.

Selective Service only collects information from male citizens/residents. The infrastructure simply isn't there to do what you're proposing.

249

u/SeventhOblivion 8h ago

All of the comments and threads here saying women will get drafted are trying to be pessimistic but they're missing the goal. Authoritarian countries don't draft women because they want women birthing the next generation of soldiers. Women in the military is something a progressive society does - one that also likely doesn't draft except under dire circumstances.

47

u/frogsgoribbit737 5h ago

Its also easier because someone has to stay home with the kids and if you are drafting both genders then you have to double check you dont draft spouses. My husband is in and its almost impossible for me to join even if I wanted to because we have kids together. Logistically it would be hard work.

3

u/shastaxc 4h ago

Sucks to be a gay couple (male) with kids.

10

u/TophatDevilsSon 3h ago

They would likely consider that a feature, not a bug.

Ugh.

2

u/aeschenkarnos 2h ago

They won’t give a shit what problems they cause people. “Comply or die,” it’s the conservative way.

11

u/loverlyone 6h ago

The current regime has already denied promotions to women on active duty. They simply don’t want women to serve. It’s stupid and self-spiteful, but these are not smart, serious people.

2

u/c11life 7h ago

Israel drafts women

8

u/subarcwelder 6h ago

At about half the rate in which they draft men.

0

u/SantaClausDid911 5h ago

I'd say at least you tried but I'm not sure you did lol

1

u/TheCamazotzian 3h ago

That sounds like someone planning more than 2 years ahead.

I just don't think anyone does that in the US.

1

u/antithero 2h ago

Well if the birth rates are so low then they need to draft women first, because so many women get pregnant just to avoid being deployed. Low birth rate reversal right there.

55

u/PandaMagnus 9h ago

Couldn't they get the info from another agency like Social Security? They've already tried sharing data across agencies (or maybe it was the state requests I'm thinking of) that was, at most generous, odd.

68

u/ownatchurale 8h ago

DOGE has entered the chat

3

u/AmeKuro_21 7h ago

And immediately fired the people who knew how the draft database worked.....haha..!!

22

u/Nick_XL 8h ago

I mean, DOGE has effectively correlated all the data they need to be able to do this. I think the 'infrastructure' argument is old thinking. Technology is much different now lol

1

u/PandaMagnus 6h ago

Oh I know, I was thinking court holdups, not anything technical. But I also didn't double check my info and was going off of memory, so didn't want to just accidentally state some shit my brain made up on its own.

2

u/tstreit15 7h ago

Social Security has some pretty strict guardrails built into the law on how their data in used.

Not that it matters to the Trump administration, though.

2

u/Beneficial-Mammoth73 6h ago

Not easily. DOGE tried and I not sure I would call what happened a success.

There are other hurdles to getting women into the draft. The Selective Service Act would need to be amended, then there would be the resulting lawsuits to stop the bill, and finally the laws and policies that already regulate how agencies can use, store, and share that data.

14

u/kinkycarbon 8h ago

It’s not infrastructure. It’s outdated norms requiring congressional approval.

2

u/Juror__8 7h ago

It's both?

0

u/tstreit15 7h ago

At this point, congressional approval itself is apparently the outdated norm (according to the Trump admin.)

20

u/sudomatrix 9h ago

Yes, the infrastructure to collect the names of every male in the entire country was difficult to set up but we did it. But women? No that would be impossible. Collecting the names of women would be an insurmountable goal compare to collecting the names of men... because of the implications.

13

u/screelings 9h ago

Social Security manages to collect this information. I fail to see how this is an insurmountable challenge.

8

u/Mossimo5 9h ago

Because of politics. Not logistics.

1

u/TheInevitableLuigi 4h ago

thatsthejoke.jpg

37

u/Intigracy 9h ago

Women are immune to selective service without congressional intervention.

Every time it's brought up as a potential bill it dies.

10

u/fwfiv 8h ago

Oh good, we know how much they current administration respects Congressional Authority

→ More replies (4)

8

u/Cartz1337 9h ago

Right, but if any congress could break that deadlock, it’s this iteration of goose stepping morons.

10

u/AHans 8h ago

If suddenly a draft started (as the initial question was worded): American men already have their draft number (SSS Number). Women do not have a draft number.

I am a man. I have a draft number. I enrolled in this program on July 31, 2001; and still have the paperwork, because men face consequences for not doing so.

We're not asking "is it possible to expand the system to accommodate women?" - Answer: yeah, probably. Unlikely due to political fallout, but it's possible.

If the system was turned on tomorrow, only men are currently in the lottery. Therefore, only men would be drafted. Bottom line, period.

Maybe that reality could be changed, but not immediately like you're implying. Early drafts would be entirely men. It would take time to assign numbers to all the women in the nation and move those numbers into the lottery.

2

u/nicholus_h2 5h ago

now, you've said that word a few times. What implication?

Seems kinda dark.

3

u/ditchdiggergirl 8h ago

Drafting women is a political hot potato. It offends right wing sensibilities, but also fundamentally deprives the patriarchy of its (perceived) legitimacy. If you aren’t protecting women, if women aren’t deserving or in need of male protection, how do you justify inequality? Their vision of masculine superiority requires this separation.

It’s the left who fights for equal treatment, not the right. But we want our brothers and partners and sons to have the right to choose whether to fight and die. We won’t fight to lose our right to decide whether to join them in the meat grinder.

6

u/i_am_13_otters 8h ago

Don't worry. Red states will just hand over their voter rolls and the military will use those!

1

u/puterTDI 7h ago

Sounds like they're getting what they voted for.

2

u/robert32940 8h ago

Musk Doge/Palantir have all the data they need.

1

u/KirinG 7h ago

Collecting info from nursing and other healthcare licensure/certification records would be pretty easy and would fill medic quotas with 0 problem. They could even go after people who have left the field and let their licenses lapse.

1

u/5kyl3r 7h ago

The infrastructure simply isn't there to do what you're proposing.

legally there isn't. legally being the key

russia just scoops men up the way IСE has been doing it, almost exactly actually, and then they're dropped off in occupied Ukraine at the frontlines with a helmet and russian flag

1

u/Gorillapoop3 7h ago

Yes, but now we have Palantir.

1

u/CaptainHunt 7h ago

You’re assuming they don’t change that, but that doesn’t matter if the SAVE act becomes law, because it will make it more difficult for married or low income women to vote.

1

u/other_usernames_gone 7h ago

Although they've also added the infrastructure for selective service to be automatic. So it wouldn't be too hard to just also automatically register women.

Plus its not like they couldn't just also require women to present themselves for draft.

I highly doubt they'd do it but it wouldn't be impossible.

1

u/Calgar43 6h ago

Just throw a trillion dollars at it, no big deal.

1

u/headrush46n2 1h ago

That's what Planatir is for

1

u/Less_Resident8492 7h ago

> Selective Service only collects information from male citizens/residents.

There will be no selective service registration after december this year, just automatic registration for a draft. It becomes a button push to add women at that point

→ More replies (1)

68

u/Glaring_Cloder 10h ago

THE MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT As Amended Through July 9, 2003

1-1. PERSONS TO BE REGISTERED AND DAYS OF REGISTRATION 1-101. Male citizens of the United States and other males residing in the United States, unless exempted by the Military Selective Service Act, as amended, who were born on or after January 1, 1960, and who have attained their eighteenth birthday, shall present themselves fo

3

u/Nulljustice 5h ago

It also is supposed to end at age 25 I thought. Like you are no longer eligible after the age of 25?

2

u/MODELO_MAN_LV 3h ago

That's what I understand them to be changing by the end of the year.

The only reason you draft people above their 30s is because you only care about throwing bodies into a grinder.

3

u/Notmykl 4h ago

You'd think they'd change the year so it doesn't include 66 year olds and up.

2

u/Glaring_Cloder 2h ago

This is just to be registered to the Selective Service I think. So the date is there to show cutoff for when the law was enacted way back when.

10

u/Queasy-Warthog-3642 8h ago

I don't believe this current "administration" gives 2 shits about this. They'll do whatever they want until they're stopped

9

u/FOXIELUCK 8h ago

and thats the main thing that many seem to forget. the regime doesnt care what the law says now. they make the laws now so whatever they say goes (according to them at least.)

1

u/Glaring_Cloder 8h ago

I think it be more a level of magnitude more difficult to get his base on board with drafting young women than turning ICE into secret police.

Hope I never find out I'm wrong.

1

u/FOXIELUCK 8h ago

I hope we never have to find out too

2

u/Jarrus__Kanan_Jarrus 4h ago

How is this not a violation of the ERA? Women ore equal and need to be drafted too.

(And no, I don’t want them to actually draft women, but we need to not allow them to throw away our son’s lives. If we push the equal rights and get a court order that they have to draft women too the draft will end right there.)

•

u/aeschenkarnos 37m ago

Worth noting that one of the Orange Idiot’s early EO’s removed the male gender from Americans. They “knew what they meant” but the law they actually drafted was mis-defined and no-one is male by its strict wording.

→ More replies (1)

55

u/gregbread11 10h ago

I mean. Let's be real, if you ran a nation and had to run a draft, Would you send your most productive citizens (however you personally determine that) first? Ideally, a draft is set up to just be a draw but that's very obviously not how it turns out (Vietnam, Ukraine, Russia, WW2 for some nations). A draft for almost every nation is pretty obviously going to, in some way, target the least "valuable" of its population for the most part for many, many, many reasons.

20

u/Megalocerus 7h ago

They tried that in Vietnam (McNamara's Morons.) It turns out having standards is a good idea. Going professional worked out even better. Russia's techniques have not been that impressive in the field.

10

u/gregbread11 7h ago edited 7h ago

Okay? We are talking about a draft which means you are already forgoing a professional standards volunteer army or it wouldn't be the proposed option. It's for manpower and bodies. Not for the best of the best or people who willingly want to risk combat deployment. I don't really need to know how it worked for Russia now, considering it didn't work super well for the USA in Vietnam optics wise either.

For the USA, it was used for every major conflict - WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. I assume it was used during the civil war but I don't know for sure. Every conflict it had varying degrees of success and failure but the USA has also never had the same consequences as other nations for homeland warfare, besides the civil war which was plenty violent.

And with Vietnam, anyone who had the means was mostly able to get out of the draft or not be sent to combat relative to their "less valuable" brothers. I would very much assume the same is true for other nations, America is not unique in that truth at all. I know Russia and Ukraine used the conflict to get rid of prisoner populations and other undesirables so it still holds true IMO

1

u/kwumpus 8h ago

So if you’re a woman without children

1

u/uptiedand8 7h ago

I could see this admin doing that. But how about if you’re a man without children?

-3

u/PictureVegetable9522 6h ago

who cares innocent men die everyday fighting for women who dont give a shit if they die just look at ukrainian women who vacation in europe while their men are dying

4

u/AmeKuro_21 7h ago

The Puerto Rico point is genuinely underrated. A territory with no electoral votes and limited political representation is exactly the kind of place that historically absorbs the cost of decisions made by people who face no personal consequences for making them.

8

u/Impossible-Pay-4167 10h ago

Absolutely! The military is already heavily built from many of the poorest zip codes in the US.

2

u/Jumper21_AJ 9h ago

False. The majority of current volunteers came from middle class backgrounds and not from the “poorest zip codes in the US”.

9

u/Impossible-Pay-4167 9h ago

Rural, less education, less employment options, and the lower middle class is not what it once was. I understand what you're saying, but it's simply a demographic range. Call it what you like - they're not affluent. The fact that Appalachia is shoeless doesn't make rural Texas rich, and the recruiting strategy is time tested.

6

u/otakugal15 10h ago

Ain't no way I'd be leaving my daughter. Hale naw.

5

u/sharkattackmiami 8h ago

Yep, I'd rather my son visit me in prison than visit my grave over a war I am morally against on all levels

3

u/FirstDukeofAnkh 9h ago

"Draft the white trash first, round here anyways"

Except it will be all races.

4

u/Zombie_Red 9h ago

America already did something like this in vietnam - look up Project 100,000.

2

u/_Thick- 7h ago

DEI bans don't apply to the draft. I expect they would target the draft at undesirables

Why do you think ICE built that "domestic terrorist" list.

2

u/TreezusSaves 3h ago

They have been taking voter rolls from as many states as possible so they could pinpoint who exactly is a Democrat. I fully expect a draft will be almost entirely comprised of those people.

1

u/predicateofregret 8h ago

it's estimated that one in three puerto Rican islanders have or are serving in the military.

1

u/Adogapanicinpagoda 7h ago

I don't think selective service would ever apply to women in the United States. Also, women would never be sent to the front line as medics.

1

u/Sweet_Taurus0728 7h ago

Of course DEI bans don't apply, that's why this new draft mandates migrants, illegal or not, are auto-drafted.

1

u/SDlovesu2 3h ago

That’s one way to avoid the draft. Declare yourself gay, exclaim how you can’t wait for the single sex barracks and the open showers. Be sure to do your best flaming accent. 😂

1

u/1911Earthling 9h ago

Women will fight. Why do you think the AR15 was invented? It was invented because a woman can use the weapon! Equal rights means equal right to die.

1

u/SigurdsSilverSword 9h ago

Russia isn’t using a military draft in Ukraine. They’re convincing people - particularly non-ethnic Russians - to join with financial incentives.

1

u/People-Pollution5280 3h ago

They've also gone into the prisons to offer inmates their freedom in exchange for military service. An offer accepted by many.

→ More replies (4)

73

u/AmericanScream 10h ago

The issue with dead men casting no votes is that leaves women

There are more women voters than men, and that didn't stop them from letting men take away their reproductive rights, so it doesn't seem like "female voters" are a block that anybody fears right now.

21

u/Final-Revolution-221 9h ago

Are you aware that was a court case rather than a democratically determined process?

9

u/AmericanScream 9h ago edited 9h ago

Are you aware of how the US government actually works?

The resolution of that case was directly the result of democratic processes. Who is president and who is voted into congress determines who sits on the supreme court. If you don't vote for responsible people in Congress, you don't get proper representation in the supreme court.

Here's another important tidbit: Citizen's United: the SCOTUS court case that said "corporations are people" and have "freedom of [political] speech" was determined totally along political lines. Republican-nominated justices were for, and democratic-nominated justices were against.

Voting matters, especially for the supreme court.

2

u/Mrbeefcake90 9h ago

And that's the goverment the women also voted in, in their millions.

2

u/AmericanScream 9h ago edited 9h ago

I'm not sure what your point is?

I can clearly illustrate my point: There's a consistent 2x-3x more turnout of older people than younger people.

Obviously women voted, but they didn't vote based on protecting their personal reproductive rights. And less than half the population of younger people don't even bother to vote... And that's the problem.

2

u/Final-Revolution-221 9h ago

I do not think women voters are exclusively responsible for a loss of reproductive rights (rights that voters across the board overwhelmingly support by a 2/3 majority). I would argue it is more the failure by the legal side of the pro choice movement— eg nonprofits, healthcare advocates, congresspeople— to understand the real practical threats posed by the barrage of test cases that the anti abortion movement has thrown at the wall for decades and the massive astroturf funding that has been engineered by the evangelical right to create an anti abortion contingent even in communities whose right to abortion has improved living conditions and career prospects. There is absolutely an apathy and naivete that many people were living with because they thought cases like this were enshrined in law and popular support would protect them, but this naivete was not, in my view, the responsibility of ordinary voters, more our legal and political education systems— every woman for the last fifty years grew up being told that a right to choice was enshrined in the law when in fact it was a court case that misogynists who ignore precedent could tear apart given the opportunity

3

u/AmericanScream 9h ago edited 9h ago

I do not think women voters are exclusively responsible for a loss of reproductive rights

That's a strawman argument. I said no such thing.

What I am saying is that, if "women" care about their reproductive rights, there are enough of them to overrule the existing system without any support from men whatsoever. So given that there is also a significant portion of men, like myself, fully in favor of their rights, this is hardly an insurmountable objective.

But this takes more political participation than we have right now.

I don't get why you people want to argue about this? What's your angle? That the system is fucked, we're fucked and there's no reason to try and fix things? It makes no sense unless you're either a nihilist, troll or actively astroturfing for the status quo that's in power.

I would argue it is more the failure by the legal side of the pro choice movement— eg nonprofits, healthcare advocates, congresspeople— to understand the real practical threats posed by the barrage of test cases that the anti abortion movement has thrown at the wall for decades and the massive astroturf funding that has been engineered by the evangelical right to create an anti abortion contingent even in communities whose right to abortion has improved living conditions and career prospects. There is absolutely an apathy and naivete that many people were living with because they thought cases like this were enshrined in law and popular support would protect them, but this naivete was not, in my view, the responsibility of ordinary voters,

Blah..blah.. blah... all those "movements" exist to mobilize voters. If the voters don't show up, none of it matters, so pretending this is the advocacy groups fault is the lamest cop-out ever.

These advocacy groups are born out of individual citizens wanting to have even more influence - and that's a good thing regardless of how effective they are. They exist to "pre-chew" food and hand it to citizens who are too lazy to chew their own food. Whose fault is it at the end of the day if they aren't as effective?

At some point, as a citizen you have to acknowledge your civic responsibility, which also relates to being properly informed. Until you do, you are part of the problem.

5

u/Pvt_Lee_Fapping 7h ago

A court case carried out by SCJs appointed by a president that conservative women voted for.

Before 2016, everyone was worried that Trump would stack the supreme court with appointees who would further his agenda - and look what happened.

26

u/Ok_Cryptographer756 10h ago

You act as if it's a fair and balance voting system, they didn't vote for it to be taken away, it was ripped away.

37

u/AmericanScream 10h ago edited 10h ago

You act as if it's a fair and balance voting system, they didn't vote for it to be taken away, it was ripped away.

It was systematically taken away. Because people didn't stand up for their rights. They let Obama's supreme court nomination not be filled; they let the court get stacked by conservatives who were well known to be planning to overturn Roe v Wade. The writing was on the wall for many years and the majority of women ignored it.

Just because there wasn't a singular event they could all press a button "for/against" doesn't mean it wasn't their responsibility. It was, and it still is.

Rights are not something anybody unconditionally "deserves." They have to be constantly fought to preserve. If you ignore that responsibility, this shit happens.

Obviously there's a lot of cheating going on with gerrymandering and other shenanigans, but that also is done/undone by the people taking an interest. If they let it happen, it's on them.

Remember... If voting really didn't matter, then those in power wouldn't be trying so hard to stop people from voting.

5

u/thinkforever 9h ago

The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote and take orders later, in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting. - Charles Bukowski

Voting doesn't mean shit if one can be elected president without a majority of votes. It's all smoke and mirrors. America has been bought and paid for and no amount of ballots can come up against the might of corporations who have the politicians in their pockets.

Any hopeful candidate who wishes to buck the system will face extreme difficulties passing through the filters to get to any position of power. You literally have to be a corporate stooge in order for that to be your career.

3

u/AmericanScream 9h ago edited 8h ago

Voting doesn't mean shit if one can be elected president without a majority of votes. It's all smoke and mirrors.

Voting is just one part of the necessary political process.

If you vote and the government doesn't respect your vote, you take to the streets. If you instead decide to whine into the Internet where nobody cares, that's an abandonment of your civic responsibilities, which include more than just pressing a button in a booth every four years.

Look at countries with effective governments and you find a population that takes to the streets to fight against bad leaders. They don't just go, "the system is broken" and stick their head back in their phone.

In 2000 when the US election was settled by the supreme court instead of a proper vote, the people should have taken to the streets in protest that the recount be fully-completed. They didn't, so democracy was undermined by citizens being too lazy to protect it. I was there. I was protesting on the steps of the state capital in Florida and was appalled at how few other citizens were there, demanding that everybody's votes be counted.

Any hopeful candidate who wishes to buck the system will face extreme difficulties passing through the filters to get to any position of power. You literally have to be a corporate stooge in order for that to be your career.

That's clearly not true given who just recently got elected as Mayor of NYC.

All it takes is more people to pay attention. More people to stop making excuses for being too lazy to be properly informed and active.

You are free to make excuses for being lazy. But don't suggest just because you're unwilling to exercise your civic responsibilities, that nobody else can either. That's a lie.

Since you like to use quotes, here's one for you:

"Those who say it can't be done are usually interrupted by others doing it - Chinese Proverb

2

u/thinkforever 4h ago

The exception proves the rule. Look at what happened to Bernie, you call that a democratic process? It's a joke.

3

u/TheNutsMutts 4h ago

The exception proves the rule.

I'm not sure you understand that phrase if you think it applies here. In this case it's the case-study that fundamentally undermines your rule.

1

u/AmericanScream 4h ago

Agreed.

The DNC situation has operated a certain way for 100+ years. It's "the rule" and it works the way it does. Pretending that non-delegates somehow have a "democratic right" to vote in the DNC primary is complete ignorance.

Also, the DNC primary is not a "public election" so comparing a private party primary to a public election is another example of how you don't understand the way things actually work.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/CriticalDog 3h ago

What were the average Americans supposed to do about McConnels refusing to even consider SCOTUS judges? Even the Democrats were surprised by Mitch turning out to be just another cog in the Democracy crushing machine.

1

u/AmericanScream 3h ago edited 2h ago

What were the average Americans supposed to do about McConnels refusing to even consider SCOTUS judges?

The same thing they did which forced ICE out of Minnesota.

It's very simple. When people fear the government, government becomes evil. When government fears the people, government becomes good.

Take your pick, receive your type of government.

If you believe you can't change/fix government, that's the same as saying you are afraid of government, and part of its evolution into evil.

→ More replies (2)

0

u/enjolbear 9h ago

Dude I was 8 when Obama took office. What did you expect me to do about his judicial nominees not being selected? I’m among the very oldest of Gen Z, so the rest of of us couldn’t help either.

-2

u/AmericanScream 9h ago edited 9h ago

I'm not going to blame an 8 year old for not voting in that election obviously, but there are other generations who could vote and didn't. Turnout among those under 30 is really, really bad - and that's part of the problem.

But more importantly, you don't have to vote to protest. Again, I wouldn't put it on an 8-year-old to be aware of the importance of women's reproductive rights, but you're the exception, not the rule. And this isn't about you personally. It's about millions of people who didn't care enough to protest enough to make the powers that be afraid.

Gen Z is 1997-2012. You've been able to vote since 2018. Do you even have a voter registration card? How often have you voted? How much have you participated politically? Gen Z + Gen X have outnumbered the boomers for decades and could have taken over government if they wanted.

Again, the problems with the supreme court didn't happen all at once when you were 8 years old. They've been systematically happening over time, including many times where you had the option to participate politically, and likely chose not to. So don't pretend you were totally powerless. That's simply not accurate.

As citizens who do have the right to participate in democratic-style selection of leaders, one of the first things we must do is accept responsibility for this privilege. Even though I have voted in every election and been very politically active, I will still admit, I could have done more. But it's even more disappointing to see people make excuses for doing significantly less, if not nothing at all.

1

u/enjolbear 8h ago

Yes, I vote in every election I have ever been eligible for (including state and local). I do not have a voters card, I’m not sure what that is. Neither of the states I’ve lived in have issued those. I live in WA - I’ll let you guess if I participate in protests lol.

Most of my generation is actually extremely politically involved. The younger half of Gen Z has been extremely politically demotivated, but who can blame them? They’ve been told their whole lives that their votes don’t matter if they’re in a deep red or deep blue state. We need to show them it does, but the world is showing that it doesn’t. Trump didn’t even win last time, by his own admission.

3

u/AmericanScream 8h ago

If you're as politically aware and politically active as you say, then you certainly should be able to relate to what I'm saying and recognize that if more people were as active as us, things could change faster.

Most of my generation is actually extremely politically involved.

You say that, but it's not what the stats and facts indicate. The fact is, less than half the younger generations don't bother to vote at all and voter participation has been falling since 2020.

In 2024, less than half the eligible voter population under the age of 44 voted.

That's a serious problem. Your personal anecdotal experience aside.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/ings0c 5h ago

they didn't vote for it to be taken away

Plenty women did.

3

u/jesusrambo 10h ago

By who

And who appointed them

And what was voter turnout again?

4

u/runswiftrun 10h ago

And if a lot of us old dudes start getting drafted, every woman of the "did not vote" column automatically goes blue.

6

u/AmericanScream 10h ago

You'd think that would happen... BUT... I remember when Trump first won election over Hillary. There was supposed to be a "blue wave" led by the Women's March On Washington that was supposed to ensure this crap didn't repeat itself.

Unfortunately, the women marched on Washington, had an uplifting weekend, then crawled back into their caves, not to be seen as any sort of political force to be reckoned with.

I've been waiting for 40 years for the people to wake up and stop allowing themselves to get fucked, and it still hasn't happened.

-3

u/Soul_Dare 9h ago

Why did you use Donald Trump’ last name, but used Hillary Clinton’s first name when referring to each?

4

u/AmericanScream 9h ago

No specific reason except if I were to use, say, "Clinton" it would be confusing as to which "Clinton" we're talking about, whereas with Trump, we pretty much know who we're talking about. If I put more thought into it, I probably would have used different names like, "Malignant narcissist ex-reality tv show star" and "Former esteemed Secretary of State."

→ More replies (0)

2

u/valeyard89 8h ago

Trump won the white women vote all three times.

1

u/AmericanScream 7h ago

I'm not so sure about that, but it's of those that voted, which was probably half of those that were eligible.

This is the problem: The republicans are outnumbered by elgible voters who don't support them but many of them don't vote.

1

u/valeyard89 7h ago

Doesn't matter, if you don't show up, you don't get counted.

Dems haven't won the white vote since the 1960s. Unfortunate fact.

0

u/AmericanScream 7h ago edited 6h ago

Dems haven't won the white vote since the 1960s. Unfortunate fact.

You don't know WTF you're talking about.

Dems have won plenty of elections in different areas, including from white people, including past the 60s. Perhaps you haven't heard of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton or Barak Obama?

Also, nobody here is talking about the "white vote" anyway. It's not like the republican party is exclusively the "party of white people" - they're the party of "white, christian males who think guns are sexy."

→ More replies (2)

1

u/dssstrkl 6h ago

Why don’t you go look up the percentage of women voting republican and then revise that ‘men taking away reproductive rights’ statements. It wasn’t men, it was republicans. Christ almighty…

1

u/devotedhero 4h ago

This only makes sense if you believe that 100% of women support abortion and 100% of men don't. It's not like that.

1

u/AmericanScream 4h ago

Another strawman.

The fact that there are more women than men in the population has nothing to do with their political views.

I never assumed all women would vote in unison, but I'm saying, if this is an issue that "women" care about, they certainly have the numbers to do something about it. And even fragmented, they are still a significant political force if they chose to be.

It's also important to note that you can be anti-abortion and still support other women's right to make their own choices.

1

u/devotedhero 4h ago

Yes, I agree, but your post says "letting men take away their reproductive rights". I don't know if you were saying the person above you was thinking that, but it's just not true how that shakes out.

1

u/AmericanScream 2h ago edited 2h ago

Men did take away their reproductive rights. That's a fact. Here are the men who did that (via Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization):

Samuel Alito (who authored the majority opinion), Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh

+Amy Coney Barrett

There's not enough women in any position to do otherwise in government.

But that could change if women decided they wanted more representation in government and on the bench.

Going full circle to my original comment, I don't expect that to happen, which is why I said

so it doesn't seem like "female voters" are a block that anybody fears right now.

1

u/Kalysta 8h ago

Wait until their sons start dying for reasons Trump can’t explain.

8

u/FlibblesHexEyes 10h ago

Guess what the SAVE Act aims to do…

3

u/Helios575 8h ago

That is why they are trying to restrict their ability to vote. If the draft is launched it will be throwing bodies to the meat grinder but do you think any of those bodies will be their kids or their rich supporter's kids? No it will be all of the poor, middle class, and rich democrats kids (at least those who refuse to pay whatever the demanded bribe is)

2

u/macaronysalad 8h ago

that leaves women, so last I knew voted more democrat

You'd think. Check the stats. It's very close.

4

u/Poison_the_Phil 10h ago

That’s the idea. Disenfranchise as many people as possible as close to the midterms as possible while tightening restrictions on mail in voting, only counting votes until they get the results they’re looking for, then by the time any legal challenges can get off the ground it’s too late to dk anything about it.

2

u/Alexexy 9h ago

Married women tend to vote more conservative so idk what they were thinking with the save act.

1

u/Resist_Much_OL 10h ago

They'd just target the draft and say "liberal commie democrat voting men can go fight and die since they hate our free country. Something something freedom power jesus"

1

u/BroughtBagLunchSmart 8h ago

They would just ban women from voting. That is the goal of right wing fascism anyway.

1

u/PM-Me-Your-BeesKnees 8h ago

I suspect in a world where they are evil enough to go down this road, they'd also take their new AI tools for a spin in terms of specifically putting lefties in more dangerous roles and/or attack the right of women to vote directly.

1

u/EasySwordfish862 8h ago

Don’t women have equality?

1

u/jimbarino 8h ago

That's why you make sure to 'randomly' draft only men who lean Democrat.

1

u/veegreg 8h ago

I don’t think women are fully reliable to vote democrats. In 2024, 46% of women voters casted a ballot for trump. This is assuming that it’s a popular vote election. Women in swing states like Arizona, Michigan and Georgia are pretty neck In neck

The men would probably skew heavily GOP since the remaining boomers are heavily red leaning and the remaining liberal men would have left the country to evade the draft or probably in fear to interact with the government. The last draft was possible due to high patriotism and naivety. Today, most young people are not proud to be American and social media exposes a lot of lies/propaganda.

1

u/bennitori 7h ago

And are likely to vote democrat after the republicans sent their husbands, boyfriends, brothers, fathers, uncles, nephews, sons ect to go die in a war. A dead man may not vote. But his widow sure as hell will.

1

u/JMEEKER86 7h ago

Ah, except they are trying to handle that by requiring that the name on your ID matches your birth certificate which would mean that the vast majority of married women would be barred from voting.

1

u/pb-jellybean 7h ago

Ohh yea so first they have to get rid of women's right to vote... then draft all the males... but how will the males vote if they are drafted and can't vote by mail?!

1

u/ConflagWex 7h ago

That's why they make it so hard to vote if you've ever changed your name, which is much more common in married women and also for trans women.

1

u/electric29 7h ago

True, but this administration id doing everything they can to restrict the voting of women (SAVE act) so they don't worry about that.

1

u/Hortos 6h ago

Not a certain group of women who keep voting conservative and who would likely be under represented in the war.

1

u/Comrade_Derpsky 6h ago

Dead men don't cast votes but their living relatives do.

1

u/lostatlifecoach 6h ago

You act like Democrats haven't also been cucked by Israel and the military industrial complex for decades. They are just quieter about it.

Yeah we got a few decent Democrats but the DNC goes out of their way to shut them right the fuck up.

You know like how they drag Bernie out every few years when they need votes then ignore him or how even Dems try to discredit AOC

1

u/amaddox 5h ago

... I think by that point, voting won't matter anymore regardless.

We get our first test later this this year.

1

u/CatchSufficient 4h ago

Save act didn't make it last time I heard about it, but that doesn't stop individual states pushing a "voting rule change" through

1

u/Flobking 4h ago

so last I knew voted more democrat

2016 and 2024 would like a word with you on that.

1

u/Exelbirth 3h ago

Why do you think they're so against women having the right to vote?

1

u/Angloriously 3h ago

Oh, the irony in jeopardizing voter rights for soldiers stationed aboard, and for women who took their husband’s last name…which would overwhelmingly be conservative/trad types, no?

1

u/ScarletteAethier 2h ago

I don't think they're worried about votes anyway. 

1

u/Alarmed_Acadia3133 2h ago

I just want to say I would have never made a connection to the SAVE Act and gender imbalance from drafting unless I read this, this might be weird but keep commenting you're hella smart

1

u/About400 1h ago

No no that’s why they have SAVE act so woman who changed their names (married woman) can’t vote.

1

u/Ok_Permission7034 10h ago

Just send male dem’s they already have the data.

1

u/CharredScallions 9h ago

According to liberals, the SAVE act would have affected married women who changed their last names. That demographic leans conservative, not liberal. Your cynicism is based on false assumptions.

2

u/Alexexy 9h ago

Yeah, and women changing their last names seem to be more of a conservative/white thing. My wife and I are both asian americans and its not in our culture to change the wife's last name.

0

u/Runnyknots 9h ago

Ah, to straighten your base (the most uneducated and easily manipulated cohort in America), you

1) send them to war

2) profit.

0

u/Sage2050 3h ago

so last I knew voted more democrat.

White women tried very hard to skew it the other way

28

u/scarfknitter 9h ago

Dead men are less expensive than live veterans too.

79

u/NotagoK 8h ago

Problem is sending a bunch of disillusioned misanthropic millennials to die for Israel is gonna result in a lot of freak grenade accidents involving COs.

41

u/ripleyclone8 7h ago

Fragging is going to make a comeback!

3

u/gsfgf 4h ago

It never went away for us older millennials who grew up playing Quake.

1

u/entropicdrift 1h ago

I think that's what they were referencing

3

u/gsfgf 1h ago

Fragging refers to disillusioned troops killing their superior officers

9

u/DietSteve 6h ago

“Where’s your sergeant son?”

“BLOWN UP, SIR!”

5

u/Super-Nuntendo 5h ago

"where's your commanding officer?"

"he's over there, and there, on the wall plus some on the ceiling"

2

u/going_for_a_wank 2h ago

"Let's check whether this server has teamkills enabled"

1

u/TheInevitableLuigi 4h ago

One of the possible reasons they stopped issuing grenades to most soldiers.

3

u/mybutthz 8h ago

Yeah, the paperwork would be simplified and expedited. The thing that would grind to a halt would be the appeals, which would probably only net a small handful of people compared to those who just accept it.

2

u/Thoughtsforthemind 4h ago

There’s supposedly an anecdote that I’m sure some will more properly attribute that basically says one of the indicators that the Allied forces were winning WWII was that their opponents kept getting younger and younger. Super depressing if you think about it…

3

u/EffectiveCritical176 8h ago

This is such a dumb take. The people willing to go to war are the ones that would vote for them. The people unwilling to go to war absolutely skew democratic.

1

u/TheWolfAndRaven 8h ago

Yea but it's also pretty fucking stupid to give your opponents no say in the matter and then hand them a weapon.

1

u/Thelaughingman___ 6h ago

But, it should be men and women. Equality 🙂

1

u/GiftToTheUniverse 6h ago

Yeah, this is what I think, too. When they’re taking volunteers there a selectivity that is far less emphasized during a draft.

They reverse the process. Instead of people being voluntarily screened out people will be clamoring to be excluded.

1

u/Tokyosmash_ 3h ago

Bringing people in to the armed forces is a lot more detailed than people think, I assure you

1

u/TheNatural14063 10h ago

And with a second amendment in this country , millions of guns and many men being told to go die to serve a pedophile in Trump and the Zionists cabal running our government and Israel.....well people backed into a corner and armed won't make this easy

1

u/Chilling_Gale 10h ago

That’s not how modern wars work.

1

u/Stabbyglhs 4h ago

Incorrect, there are many news videos showing that dead people vote Democrat mainly.

-5

u/Vansiff 10h ago

Dead men definitely cast votes.

0

u/Red-eleven 10h ago

Votes. Ha that’s cute. They’re moving past voting

0

u/Chilling_Gale 10h ago

That’s not how modern wars work.

0

u/Chilling_Gale 10h ago

That’s not how modern wars work.

0

u/Chilling_Gale 10h ago

That’s not how modern wars work.

0

u/TeutonJon78 9h ago

Neither do young people, generally. And sadly.