Eligible men will automatically be registered into the military draft pool by December as part of an effort to streamline the previous process of self-registration and save money.
Eligible men will automatically be registered into the military draft pool by December as part of an effort to streamline the previous process of self-registration and save money.
It is not emotional appeal, it’s recognition of reality that underpins the framework of a government. Things that might be totally acceptable under an Obama administration aren’t suddenly disappeared when a Trump inevitably enters office. And you have to account for that when creating new legislation.
The founder of the US didn’t have any intention of infringing rights when they created the Bill of Rights. It was written with the explicit knowledge that somewhere down the line a tyrant would enter office and desire to trample basic human rights.
By that metric, you can’t pass anything, lest the inevitable “tyrant” abuse it. That logic would apply equally to Eisenhower’s freeways (for fear of moving an occupying force around the country) as it does to the draft.
I didn’t have any greater objection to the draft existing on Jan 20 2025 as I did during Trump’s first term or during Obama’s or during Clinton’s (when I signed the selective service card.) Indeed, there could just as well be a theoretical real need for immediate national defense in which a draft might be understandable as there is a tyrant abusing it. To wit, you alluded to Vietnam, a “war” where one of its defining historical contexts is Americans objections to fighting it. Compare that to the draft in World War 2.
The issue here isn’t the draft existing (not really), it’s the optics of an unpopular president appearing to getting ready to use it for an unpopular and aggressive war.
You just restated your position and then just rambled about things you think help support your already unfalsifiable statement.
I am criticizing your phrase “there are always tyrannical leaders on the horizon” as being vague, unfalsifiable, and useless in describing historical struggles. You said this to hand wave away something the other commenter said. And I’m calling you out for it.
You are using an unfalsifiable statement to describe history. Because if I say “well X leader was good” your statement is vague enough to say “well, after X leader there was Z leader and they were a tyrant by my definition”.
Do you understand what I am criticizing now? You aren’t actually saying anything meaningful or useful when you said “there is always a tyrannical leader on the horizon”
I have no idea what your point is.
I’m not surprised.
Let’s start at the beginning. Do you know what an unfalsifiable statement is?