United States Corrupt Twattery

[BloodOmen]

 

[DaGaffer]

Automatic registration for US military draft-eligible men to begin in December

Automatic registration into Selective Service was mandated in December 2025, when President Donald Trump signed into law the fiscal year 2026 NDAA.

www.militarytimes.com

Hmm, so they can automatically register eligible men (but not women apparently) for the draft, but you have to jump through hoops to register to vote. *scratches chin*

 

[Scouse]

Currently, almost all male U.S. citizens and immigrants aged 18 through 25 are required to self-register within 30 days of their 18th birthday

So, they have to self register at the moment, but instead it'll mean they don't have to.

Cost cutting administrative measure - no change (or sensible change for a requirement introduced in 1917) being presented as mwahhh! Look how EVIL they are!

As for women - Democrats called Republicans COWARDS for ditching plans to make it mandatory for women in 2016.

Don't let the facts get in the way of an anti-Trump rage tho.


Edit: I'm ENJOYING the Trump-like use of CAPITALS in my posts

 

[BloodOmen]

Automatic registration for US military draft-eligible men to begin in December

Automatic registration into Selective Service was mandated in December 2025, when President Donald Trump signed into law the fiscal year 2026 NDAA.

www.militarytimes.com

Hmm, so they can automatically register eligible men (but not women apparently) for the draft, but you have to jump through hoops to register to vote. *scratches chin*

More curious why they're pushing it now, especially with Trumps apparent lust for attacking people... I smells another war incoming and my spider senses tell me it might be Cuba.

November can't come soon enough... hopefully the Dems sweep the midterms like people are assuming and they completely gut the orange cunts powers.

 

[Scouse]

More curious why they're pushing it now

They're not "pushing it". They're saving money and people's time - why make people register, spend money on advertising and promotion, when they could just do it for them? It's simply "good governance".

Now, if you were asing me why the US has a draft at all, then I'd happily weigh in on that.

 

[DaGaffer]

They're not "pushing it". They're saving money and people's time - why make people register, spend money on advertising and promotion, when they could just do it for them? It's simply "good governance".

Now, if you were asing me why the US has a draft at all, then I'd happily weigh in on that.

You still haven't answered how they can automate this but not the voting registration process.

 

[SilverHood]

You still haven't answered how they can automate this but not the voting registration process.

The short answer is that Selective Service is run by the federal government, while voter registration is on a state by state basis.

 

[Scouse]

You still haven't answered how they can automate this but not the voting registration process.

1) I didn't know that was the question and;

2) Why's that on me? But I like that @SilverHood knew

 

[BloodOmen]

So, Trump is considering a deal with Iran... the deal would allow Iran to continue Enriching Uranium after a decade (basically what Obama had in place in the first place)

Trump 'weighing' major Iran uranium enrichment deal in dramatic nuclear retreat

Donald Trump is reportedly weighing a proposal that would allow Iran to resume uranium enrichment after a period of suspension, in what would mark a significant shift in US nuclear policy towards Tehran

www.belfastlive.co.uk

So to summarize, he criticised Obamas deal as weak, cancelled it

Attacked Iran to stop them Enriching Uranium.. started a war and fucked the worlds economies/fuel prices etc

Now considering putting the same deal as Obama in place...

 

[DaGaffer]

The short answer is that Selective Service is run by the federal government, while voter registration is on a state by state basis.

But the data is there right? So if the data exists at the Federal level, every person on their database exists at the state level (plus DC), so the mechanism for each state to call in their voter registration from Federal data exists. But Republican states constantly claim the only way to ensure the voter rolls are accurate is a whole series of authentications that they control.

1) I didn't know that was the question and;

2) Why's that on me? But I like that @SilverHood knew

I never said it was on you but it was the only thing I said in the original post about it. I don't give a shit about American conscription, but I do give a shit about election fixing.

 

[Scouse]

I don't give a shit about American conscription, but I do give a shit about election fixing.

Strange post to drive that argument, but fair enough.

I care too. Plaid Cymru are going to get in around here after Labour gerrymandering backfired on them. So I'm waiting for them to pass more laws to tell me what I can and cannot do with my primary residence - probably with more teeth than the ones that were just slapped down.

 

[SilverHood]

But the data is there right? So if the data exists at the Federal level, every person on their database exists at the state level (plus DC), so the mechanism for each state to call in their voter registration from Federal data exists. But Republican states constantly claim the only way to ensure the voter rolls are accurate is a whole series of authentications that they control.



I never said it was on you but it was the only thing I said in the original post about it. I don't give a shit about American conscription, but I do give a shit about election fixing.

It's kinda there for men born in the US. Immigrants must register for selective service if they're of the right age and gender (I was too old by the time I became a permanent resident), so if they used selective service database for voter eligibility, I wouldn't be on it, and neither would most women. There's no law that says you must tell the federal government where you live, and where you live matters, because it determines your eligibility for voting at the smallest level (school, town, etc), and then up (county, state, federal). The social security database is probably the best database the federal government has, but even that one is not always up to date, since they don't get notified of people becoming citizens, so yeah, data is there, but states don't want to have to interact with the federal government for elections, because they can't be trusted to act in a non partisan way. Imagine all the states needed to refresh their voter rolls from the government every election, but only the republican states get processed while blue states are stuck, because, you know, some IT issue. Or the other way around.

So part of this is by design. We're currently seeing red states hand over their voter ID rolls to the Trump administration, who then hand list of registered democratic voters to to the republican party, who in turn are purging registered democrats, along with independents who receive assistance, SNAP or other benefits, with the idea being that they're mostly blue leaning voters, and they won't realise they've been purged until they try to vote, at which point, it will be too late to do anything about it.

My worry is that it starts a tit for tat voter purge between blue and and red states, where those belonging to parties not in power gets purged before their election across the whole of the US. At which point we're gonna end up with civil war.

 

[DaGaffer]

It's kinda there for men born in the US. Immigrants must register for selective service if they're of the right age and gender (I was too old by the time I became a permanent resident), so if they used selective service database for voter eligibility, I wouldn't be on it, and neither would most women. There's no law that says you must tell the federal government where you live, and where you live matters, because it determines your eligibility for voting at the smallest level (school, town, etc), and then up (county, state, federal). The social security database is probably the best database the federal government has, but even that one is not always up to date, since they don't get notified of people becoming citizens, so yeah, data is there, but states don't want to have to interact with the federal government for elections, because they can't be trusted to act in a non partisan way. Imagine all the states needed to refresh their voter rolls from the government every election, but only the republican states get processed while blue states are stuck, because, you know, some IT issue. Or the other way around.

So part of this is by design. We're currently seeing red states hand over their voter ID rolls to the Trump administration, who then hand list of registered democratic voters to to the republican party, who in turn are purging registered democrats, along with independents who receive assistance, SNAP or other benefits, with the idea being that they're mostly blue leaning voters, and they won't realise they've been purged until they try to vote, at which point, it will be too late to do anything about it.

My worry is that it starts a tit for tat voter purge between blue and and red states, where those belonging to parties not in power gets purged before their election across the whole of the US. At which point we're gonna end up with civil war.

So looking at the fields required in the current registration process, you can't automate it; certainly not completely. At best it becomes an online verification/update form or it's by definition, inaccurate.

 

[BloodOmen]

Jesus christ.... they need to wake the fuck up and get him out now.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/trump-blocked-accessing-nuclear-codes-37045513

 

[caLLous]

 

[BloodOmen]

 

[caLLous]

 

[caLLous]

This is probably fine...

The Supreme Court’s Conservatives Just Issued the Worst Ruling in a Century

This evisceration of the Voting Rights Act requires us to take SCOTUS reform more seriously.

slate.com

 

[Scouse]

This is probably fine...

So, if you read that, you could easily say that US retreated from "one man one vote", to a system that favoured voters by colour of their skin. They abandoned "all men are created equal" and changed laws that required minorities that were angry about the lack of same-skin-colour representation in their lawmaking bodies to prove that the voters intended to dilute the power of minority voters - rather than simply the majority voting for the people they wanted to vote for.

i.e. - they entrenched identity politics.

And furthermore, they introduced a legal requirement in the 1980's to ensure that when voting borders were redrawn that the skin-colour of the representatives likely to be voted in would be less-white, more-brown.

I.E. - in a (well meaning) attempt to recover from clear racial discrimination they enacted laws that were not true to this:

View: https://youtu.be/tNxrnOC_WTs?t=331


In America, these laws were passed to right an injustice, but to do so introduced another injustice. One that is fundamental to the constitution of the United States. All men are created equal. But under these laws, not any more.

YMMV.

Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, Labour is trying to remove the right to trial by jury. So Attacus Finch wouldn't even be able to make his impassioned speech for equality of treatment.

But, you know: America. That's where all the bad shit is happening.


Edit: I liked this bit of the story though:

If and when Democrats retake control of the political branches, it will be incumbent on them not only to write new voting legislation protecting minority voters and all voters in the ability to participate fairly in elections that reflect the will of all the people; they will also have to consider reform of the Supreme Court itself

We didn't get our way. So when the Democrats get in, lets reform the Supreme Court, so minority voters, as well as all voters, (but definitely minority voters), get elections that reflect our political leanings.

Different party. Same shit.

 

[caLLous]

You don't even understand (wilfully or otherwise) your own effort to crowbar Labour into the US thread (again) - they're not trying to "remove the right to trial by jury" universally, the proposal keeps jury trials for serious crimes (murder, rape, etc). So... yes, a defence lawyer in a rape case in a movie would've still been able to make a speech (assuming he'd been in the UK, depending on how far this comparison has to go)...

Meanwhile...


That's all fine though, let's keep desperately trying to steer every discussion back to how it's all really the Democrats' fault and falsely exaggerating what Labour are doing to make it sound like some evil masterplan rather than just a way (or a component of a much broader set of reforms) of trying to eat into an 80,000 Crown Court case backlog that the Tories and COVID created.

 

[Scouse]

they're not trying to "remove the right to trial by jury" universally

Just for the record. You OK with that?

 

[Scouse]

Oh, btw, that video @caLLous. Thought it was about ending elections? But it's 37 minutes long and can't stay on fucking topic.

The fact that Fry's involved saddens me. Do you wank yourself to sleep on that stuff?

Is there something out there that makes an intellectual case without me having to wade through acres of stuff that's thrown at me in the hope that something lands?

 

[Tom]

I am. Hardly any court cases are decided by a jury. There's nothing really objectionable about a panel of judges deciding on guilt for most offences. Especially complex financial trials and things that go on for months.

 

[Scouse]

I am. There's nothing really objectionable about a panel of judges deciding on guilt for most offences.

Ooof. You're ok with the state deciding the future of people.

And we worry about incresing state influence over courts in America?

There's plenty objectionable about panels of judges deciding on guilt - including complex financial trials, which have been the thin end of this wedge. Now we're staring down the barrel of wholesale reform that puts the state in as judge and jury.

Fuck that. We need trial by a jury of our peers.

 

[DaGaffer]

Just for the record. You OK with that?

And your plan B is....?

 

[DaGaffer]

NB. 92,804 Magistrates trials in England and Wales in 2025 with no jury involved. So it's already happening and the stable door fell off a long time ago. Frankly even with Judge panels your 80K backlog will be a nightmare anyway, but with jury trials you're looking at nearly a million people for juries; actually it's worse because for every twelve selected they usually have a pool of 15-20 potentials, so it's actually 1.2 to 1.6 million.

 

[Scouse]

NB. 92,804 Magistrates trials in England and Wales in 2025 with no jury involved.

And 75% of them are motoring offences - and the vast majority of them are sorted by post when people plead guilty to speeding and get a fine.

I'd say you're misrepresenting what this reform means. And, like the right honourable judge says - it's not the jury component that's the problem.

But given the amount of "authoritarian left" types around here I'm not surprised we're surrendering our centuries old jewel in the crown of justice so meekly...

 

[DaGaffer]

And 75% of them are motoring offences - and the vast majority of them are sorted by post when people plead guilty to speeding and get a fine.

I'd say you're misrepresenting what this reform means. And, like the right honourable judge says - it's not the jury component that's the problem.

But given the amount of "authoritarian left" types around here I'm not surprised we're surrendering our centuries old jewel in the crown of justice so meekly...

No, the 92K are trials, magistrates deal with something like two million cases that aren't considered trials.

As for the rest, you haven't answered the question beyond your usual "la la la I'm not listening". Fix an 80K backlog. Off you go, and no, the answer isn't "just carry on doing what we've always done" because leaving people on remand for years on end is just as egregious as trial by judge.

 

[Scouse]

no, the answer isn't "just carry on doing what we've always done"

I refer the right honourable gentleman to the multiple* senior judges who are aghast at the decision to reduce trial by jury, not least because they say it won't move the dial, whilst producing worse outcomes.

I don't know what the solution is, but this isn't it.


*and the multiple times I've linked to them saying just that. In terms of "ignoring" things, you lot not even addressing the serious charges of lowering standards of "justice" probably ranks higher than me not having all of the answers to the world's problems to hand.

But I've a very upsetting track record of being borne out correct on these sorts of things down the years.

Maybe if we focussed on the causes of crime in the first place, and actually rehabilitated criminals so they didn't go straight back into the system upon release...

 

[DaGaffer]

I refer the right honourable gentleman to the multiple* senior judges who are aghast at the decision to reduce trial by jury, not least because they say it won't move the dial, whilst producing worse outcomes.

I don't know what the solution is, but this isn't it.


*and the multiple times I've linked to them saying just that. In terms of "ignoring" things, you lot not even addressing the serious charges of lowering standards of "justice" probably ranks higher than me not having all of the answers to the world's problems to hand.

But I've a very upsetting track record of being borne out correct on these sorts of things down the years.

Maybe if we focussed on the causes of crime in the first place, and actually rehabilitated criminals so they didn't go straight back into the system upon release...

80,000 backlog now. Deal with nirvana later.

So you've got nothing and neither do the judges moaning about it, well they do, but most of their proposals are basically "more money for judges", and some sail perilously close to American-style plea-bargaining, which is a fucking disaster.

And oh my god you're such a smug twat sometimes.

I actually don't want to give up trial by jury as a general principle at all, but pretending the system isn't utterly broken is simply a moral failure; at least the government is suggesting something.