Lochy wrote:Don't have a view on politics really. I can't do anything to change things so why waste time having a stance on it.
Especially when the current choices we do have are not of any good?
Yes. That is how I feel about who will be the president. I have lived through multiple people being president and not once did it change an outcome or lead to something bad in my life. So I just choose to ignore it.
People make it seem like the sky is gonna fall if Hillary or Trump are elected. Those people seriously have to stop worrying. This is a democratic republic, laws and other actions go through many branches of the government before the president can say yes. So all these radical laws Trump wants to do probably won't happen.
But regardless, its better to tell people you don't have a stand on politics, rather than get in a debate of a hyper sensitive topic.
Lochy wrote:I have lived through multiple people being president and not once did it change an outcome or lead to something bad in my life. So I just choose to ignore it.
This is about more than just you though. Middle class is rarely affected by such change, but certain groups of people are, and to those groups you shouldn't be so apathetic.
Lochy wrote:But regardless, its better to tell people you don't have a stand on politics, rather than get in a debate of a hyper sensitive topic.
I think if you don't have a stance at all, you should learn enough to have a stance. Even if the stance is neutrality, thinking each candidate is equally good or equally terrible.
I'm not really apathetic. I do care for others, but most people have to learn that everyone that made a change or was successful in the world ever, happened because so and so was president.
Also the president really doesn't do much. The supreme court decides things. If people want things done complain about the people in the supreme court.
Lochy wrote:I'm not really apathetic. I do care for others, but most people have to learn that everyone that made a change or was successful in the world ever, happened because so and so was president.
That's not really true. Lincoln could not have abolished slavery and JFK could not have signed the Equal Pay Act of 1963 if they weren't president.
I thought it'd be interesting to create a general politics thread to discuss whatever interesting is going on in the media or we're just interested to debate about. To spark interest I'm going to host a different poll every so often and we'll see what people's stances are on various ideas and policies.
Up first: Is the death penalty morally right? Should it be banned?
Didn't we already have one of these? I'll merge and add your poll to it if I can find it.
I've merged the threads. I realise however that this means you can't change the polls. I'll ask Humch if he can make you the OP so you have that control.
Under no circumstances do I support the death penalty. The amount it would take to keep every convicted killer in America in good shape wouldn't even scratch the surface of the military's budget. Do I think criminals sentenced to life without parole should have the option to receive lethal injection at any time? Absolutely.
Ending the life of someone in confinement no longer capable of doing anyone any harm is nothing more than an act of revenge where none is needed, and disallowing them from making a decision that harms no one (such as committing suicide) is nothing more than cruelty where none is needed.
I think I had this discussion with Nr0r recently. My opinion was something on the lines of if they want it, let them have it (humanely as possible). As for cases of punishment by death, I'm a firm believer that unless the criminal did something beyond the shadow of a doubt and that person is responsible for something extremely awful, like terrorism for example, then they should never receive a death penalty.
It should only apply to people who pose a significant risk to the lives of other people, like that guy that was shot in London yesterday. In all other cases I strongly believe in custody and rehabilitation thereafter.
Dart wrote:unless the criminal did something beyond the shadow of a doubt and that person is responsible for something extremely awful, like terrorism for example
And what is murdering a terrorist already safe from doing any more harm going to accomplish?
I strongly take issue with the mindset where people feel losing their composure suddenly becomes okay after reaching some totally arbitrary threshold.
