originally posted in:Secular Sevens
The reason I'm not upset over this is because it's being used against radicals. Why would I vote for someone on the far right or left anyway? We need more moderates, and having something that limits the amount of radicals in government sounds like a good way to do that.
English
-
Edited by Y SO REACH BETA: 11/29/2013 6:04:34 PMThis can be used to stop people who would cut the NSA, or call into question mass surveillance from ever getting elected. This kind of power is too much.
-
No it can't, read the goddamn article.
-
So you're okay with political choices being limited? When the NSA's loose definition of radical could just be calling for transparency?
-
-
What ever. If you ask me the current two party system is bloated and we need a multiparty system.
-
I wish we didn't have parties at all. I know it wouldn't work, because parties provide funding for politicians to run and advertise and etc, but I hate how people vote entirely based on party, and when it comes to making decisions, politicians vote on things based on which side of the aisle proposed the bill.
-
Edited by Ninja Guardian: 11/28/2013 7:37:24 PMIf funding is the issue with money in politics. Then we need donation caps. But that won't happen because of the "corporations are people" mentality brought on by the Citizens United ruling. I think political parties are inevitable. So we might as well improve upon the current system with a multiparty system to give more political choice.
-
You know, that is a valid argument, and a logical thought. I disagreed with you but you are absolutely right. Well done, sir.
-
Edited by Seggi: 11/28/2013 2:05:31 PMIt's not targeting 'radicals', like the socialists leafleting in the park, it's targeting jihadists advocating or encouraging violence.
-
Misread article. Anyway, only gives more reason to be okay with it.