Honesty kinda conflicted on representative term limits. Longer term people can be out of touch, but they also have a lot of experience and know how to collaborate to get laws passed 🤔
I think congress critters should be seated and dormed together by state, not by party. They would be less vile towards each other. Think of the pizza parties!
Or more vile, I feel like Californian house members would start trying to openly kill eachother. Imagine an Inland Imperial trying to get along with someone from LA, or San Francisco, or the Central valley, or the Hi desert, or Hesparia, or the wrong part of the Inland empire. Ya know what I think we just have problems with everyone else, Victorville and San Diego are chill though.
Israel: Our demands to end the war are simple. The complete destruction of Hamas and a non-Hamas government in Gaza.
US: Ok. We found a Palestinian organization with decades of governing experience, and a history of working well with you. Also, they have been opposed to Hamas since Hamas took over Gaza.
Israel: Ok, as long as we don’t need to admit to working with them.
US: Fair enough. PA, Israel and I have been destabilizing and radicalizing Gaza for decades. No country in the world is willing to touch it with a 10 foot pole now. Would you mind fixing that for us?
PA: So, you’ll recognize us as a partial governing party is Gaza.
Israel: No. Our voters won’t stand for us working with Palestinians. We just want you to do all of the work, and take the blame for every that goes wrong.
US: You should really consider it. It’s a good deal.
Israel: Also, since your here, these are some new settlements our people are building in your land on the West Bank. Could you keep your people peaceful during this? K, thanks.
PA: Yeah … No.
I wonder why Israel can’t find a credible partner for peace.
That’s a Georgian name. What kind of idiot do you have to be to be a Slavic neo Nazi? Why did the other neo Nazis let him in their club? Do they not understand their own ideology?
How about, and work with me on this: 1. Every citizen over 18 y.o. is automatically registered to vote. 2. DItch 1st past the post elections and instead have some form of ranked choice voting. I know, so radical, but that's my solution.
I like the idea on the surface, but no, I don’t want to be forced to vote for a few reasons:
A lack of voter engagement is it’s own outcome of a vote.
Freedom of speech means being able to refuse to speak, and voting is one of the most powerful forms of speech most people have.
I’m not a fan of the government forcing me to do something I might not believe in.
There are many people who don’t want to vote for trump but refuse to vote for Democrat and if forced might hold their nose and vote trump.
Making election day a Federal holiday and guaranteeing everyone has the option to vote would be more effective and have a better outcome.
Edit: Several replies are basically saying the same thing: you can turn in an empty ballot. But the exact same thing can be accomplished much easier by staying at home. You can’t force people to go somewhere, or even mail in a ballot… they have a hard enough time getting people to do the census. Also, a candidate such as trump would refuse the results of any election they lost that didn’t have 100% turnout, especially if the margin of loss is less than the percentage that didn’t vote.
Again, I do like the spirit of the idea, but in order to make it work it would take more effort than it is worth since staying home accomplishes the same thing as a blank ballot.
Like when I hand in a ballot, my vote is exactly as I submit, to include abstentions.
But if I don’t turn in a ballot for any election I’m eligible to vote in, my vote just defaults to a solid down-ballot of the party I’m registered as, or following a custom party ranking to auto-fill ranked choice ballots.
A “None of the above” option would resolve most of those issues.
If “None of the above” wins, a snap election is called a short time later (three months?), and no candidate who ran in that election is allowed to run in the snap election.
Nah optional is good but at least make it a holiday so everyone has the option to vote. Many don’t because they’re working all day and the nearest voting center is two hours away because Republicans closed down as many voting centers as they possibly could and waiting in line to vote takes hours.
Honestly, they’re real shit people constantly trying to stop people from voting. Republicans hate it when people vote.
Being a citizen isn’t free. I expect the absolute best from my government ( lots of work to go on their part), and I accept the personal responsibility of being a proper citizen. (Pay taxes, sit as a juror, vote, etc).
If only there was someone young, smart and competent who had already run for President once before who could definitely step in and fill the shoes and do a great fucking job. Oh wait… there is.
The “unity” is that this demented orange incontinent rapist has ALL their money, ALL their platform, and he gives not a single shit for anything anyone else thinks.
That’s the unity. The can grin all they want. They fucked themselves.
Interesting. I am against the death penalty but even if the DNA comes back as not his, he is still eligible for the death penalty. Their debate is that the jury wouldn’t have given him the death penalty.
It’s Texas; they would have given him the death penalty. It’s what they do down there.
Rabies and psychopathy are diseases. The prognosis is terminal in both cases, and death would be a mercy. Rabies is also far less harmful than psychopathy, because it results in less collateral damage. After all, psychopathy is responsible for almost every evil you can see in the world today from famine to poverty and war.
Again, there is an argument against the death penalty but protecting psychopaths ain’t it.
No they are not both diseases. psychopathy is not caused by infection or is it communicable. They have no basis for comparison. Also do you know anything at all about rabies progression? Its about the worst disease you can have if you have gone passed the point of no return to treat it.
Not all diseases are communicable or infectious. Psychopathy is a serious neurological pathology that robs humans of anything resembling humanity. That makes it a hell of a lot worse than rabies to my mind, but of course that’s debatable. Regardless, I’m not sure how ranking one horrible affliction against another makes much difference for this analogy.
I would not say there is specifically an upside to keeping a serial killer alive, but there are many downsides to the death penalty both ethically and in practice, not the least of which is the chance that you would execute an innocent person. For those of us who are anti-death penalty, that is usually where we’re coming from.
I’m against the death penalty, and I know the best argument against it, something nobody in this thread has even approximately articulated.
Currently, as far as I know, there is only one strong argument against the death penalty, and it has to do with moral proscriptions against treating the death of a person as a spectacle, which I notice nobody mentioned.
I don’t want someone to kill me; therefore I believe it is also not okay for me to kill someone else. It’s just the golden rule. I am not a student of ethics or philosophy but it seems pretty straightforward to me.
You’re misapplying the golden rule, which is about how you would want to be treated in similar circumstances.
In the event that I were guilty of causing great harm to innocent people, then I should be killed. Not in revenge, but as a matter of mercy and justice. For in that irremediable case, my life would no longer be worth living.
it is fundamentally inhumane to kill someone that knows it’s coming (mental torture)
That killing serial killers causes them harm isn’t a particularly compelling point, since we disagree over whether harming them is, in fact, good.
risk of executing an innocent
This is a good point and one I would explore further. However, it leaves open exceptions where the evidence is overwhelming.
it is hypocritical to kill someone for killing
Killing isn’t always bad. Killing innocent people is bad. Killing serial killers is tantamount to putting down rabid animals. Humans are, after all, literally animals.
It’s important not to conflate moral facts with practical policy. Most of your arguments focus on how people should be treated, whereas the relevant question is how governments should behave and why. These are very different things.
Regardless of what people deserve, no government should go around killing its own citizens. That is because killing as a punishment makes a spectacle of death. It is profoundly unhealthy for any civil society to revel in death. That’s the answer. It has nothing to do with what serial killers deserve. They do not matter.
Forget about the content. If any company spam text/emails me about any political bullshit I’ll ban/boycott them just for wasting my fucking time. Fuck spammers.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.