Politics

"Whatever you condemn, you have done yourself".
- Georg Groddeck, The Book of the It, 1950

Indeed, I used to believe in God.

Gun control is certainly too lenient in America, but simply owning a gun presents very few issues - I think gun control is important however.
Mental health is obviously an issue, but most mentally ill people pose a greater risk to themselves than to others.
School is also a problem, in that we are essentially raised as sheep. It is difficult to determine precisely what role school should serve.
As populations increase, politics will likely become more ineffective, so it's important for more people to become involved in it.
The coverage of shootings likely increases the incidence, although, realistically, they are not very common.

So what should we do? Simply encourage people to think for themselves.

 

Anyone else think that the US would be so much better off if they adopted a Westminster-style system of government? I question how anyone in the US can make an informed decision about a candidate when they have had zero experience with them prior to the election campaign. And as I see it that bullshit about a president getting the boot after just two terms, regardless of his/her performance in office, is very much flawed.

 

And as I see it that bullshit about a president getting the boot after just two terms, regardless of his/her performance in office, is very much flawed.

I sorta agree, but the thing is, we would have to constantly have an educated public for this to work. As such a check had been made just in case we were to have a dilemma of an under-educated public.

...Oh look at our current state of education of the public! Had the two term rule not been in place we would've had Obama again!

 

Anyone else think that the US would be so much better off if they adopted a Westminster-style system of government? I question how anyone in the US can make an informed decision about a candidate when they have had zero experience with them prior to the election campaign. And as I see it that bullshit about a president getting the boot after just two terms, regardless of his/her performance in office, is very much flawed.

I think the current system of government the US has is actually pretty good. And the term limit is a good thing IMO, because no president is perfect.

 

I think the current system of government the US has is actually pretty good.

Don't get me wrong, it works just fine. I am not saying it is ineffective, just inefficient.

And the term limit is a good thing IMO, because no president is perfect.

Because people can't oust a president on their own?

 

Because people can't oust a president on their own?

Not really?

 

Not really?

That's kinda sad.

 

I'm not sure they'd even want more than two, considering that for all the hype it's got to be one of the most joyless, high-stress positions in the world. I remember how disenchanted Obama was looking toward the end of his first term from having to put up with the likes of the birther controversy, though he seemed to hit a more positive note again once the election got going. The parties probably don't mind having the chance to switch their leaders out either, e.g. I can't imagine them wanting to run Bush Jr again in 2008, and unlike us changing out heads of state willy-nilly isn't as simple.

 

I like communism.

 

From my limited understanding of politics communism has some very interesting aspects but I sure as hell wouldn't want my country to be put under communist rule

 

I like communism.

Are you sure?

Spoiler

 

Communism is simply incompatible with humans, but probably somewhere out there deep in space an alien civilization is thriving in a communist society.

 

^ Raus got it. I mean, I wouldn't allow it in this society. Humans are just too disguisting to do something like that. If the Earth has a very tiny population, however (1k or something near those digits), then it COULD work.

But it just won't nowadays.

 

woah hey what's wrong with Francis? He's one of the best popes the church has ever had.
While I understand your sentiment, censorship is NOT the answer. I won't argue about that though. I will argue about "bye bye Leviticus."
First off, let me tell you that anyone who uses Leviticus to justify something like homophobia is retarded and doesn't have any idea what Leviticus is. Leviticus was historical context. It was a list of rules the Levites had to follow, not rules for anyone else. The book is in the Bible to explain why the Levites were so weird. People who use Leviticus to justify hate are some of the most laughably stupid people on the planet .
Regardless, anything historical should not be censored. Mein Kampf is one of the most hate filled texts I know of, but I know how important it is as historical context and wouldn't dare suggest it should be banned or otherwise censored.

I'm well aware of the Leviticus part.

Francis USED to be the best Pope we've had. Now he threw all that out the window by:

1. Saying that transsexuals go against the laws of nature.
2. Telling the county clerk that refused to allow gay marriages to "keep fighting" or something like that in an interview that he "does not deny having" with her.

 

You can't really blame him, can you? It's religion.

I don't know how many people are going to get triggered by this but I am against homosexuality. HOWEVER. It does not mean I will hate you or anything. I have a few friends who are gay and I think they're cool. It's kinda with MLP or furryism. I dislike, but I have friends who are in that category too.

 

I am against homosexuality. HOWEVER. It does not mean I will hate you or anything.

Okay so if you don't hate gays or anything then how exactly are you against homosexuality? I'm confused here.

 

Okay so if you don't hate gays or anything then how exactly are you against homosexuality? I'm confused here.

As in he doesn't support the idea, but he won't be hating/judging people who are homosexual.

 

I have a couple family members who feel the same about homosexuality. What's funny though, is that they're not comfortable with the idea not because of religion or political alignment, which seems to usually be a common misconception these days, they just...are. And yet they have a few good friends who are gay.

 

As in he doesn't support the idea, but he won't be hating/judging people who are homosexual.

But then what does "not supporting the idea" mean? That they just won't be homosexual themself? Or what?

 

But then what does "not supporting the idea" mean? That they just won't be homosexual themself? Or what?

He doesn't like homosexuality, but he is not going to judge his friends for it, or go on some extermination crusade.