34
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2026
34 points (97.2% liked)
politics
29623 readers
127 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Of course it is? Saying otherwise is just ignorance of history.
It is not even remotely symbolic. A draft is a very realistic possibility, and the fact that it even exists should be evidence enough. The last draft wasn't even that long ago. President Bone Spur dodged it.
Yes, I agree that it is now a realistic possibility. When I signed the selective service card in the 90's, not really. For that reason, objection to it now is real, whereas objection to a theoretical draft then was more symbolic.
Labeling all of history as always "having a tyrannical leader on the horizon" would literally make the word "tyrant" meaningless.
You're projecting your doomerism for today and then painting all of history with a definition. Doing this just makes the word you're using meaningless in describing history.
It's like a cell phone company that sells three different versions of their "unlimited data" plan. They are making the word "unlimited" meaningless. But the emotional idea of "unlimited" is still heard by their customers in ads.
You're doing that here with "Tyrannical leader". Making a broad characterization that is unhelpful in doing anything but appeal to the emotion of doomerism.
You're not characterizing history correctly. You're not understanding history correctly. You're appealing to the idea of class structures and oppression without using any of the tools or definitions developed to actually describe those relationships.
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.
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?