Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If 'dictator' means that more Americans voted for that person, than voted for the other, then YES, a dictator is in the best interest of America.
And it can only be for 2 terms anyway. Dictatorship is not possible.
Many will vote for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney that would really prefer Libertarian Gary Johnson. MSM forcing such an election result (by not mentioning Gary Johnson) doesn't seem right. Republican or Democrat seems like a 1 party dictatorship when one examines how little they differ on important issues:
Both Obama & Romney want forced participation in a Federal health care program. This would be the biggest gift to Drs & Big Pharma ever. The lowest level of coverage, catastrophic only, would require paying several thousand in premiums before emergency care could take place. Pay now or die? Or else if Feds pay most of cost, deficit spending, printing more dollars creating massive debt & hyper inflation. And many treatments, from pills to operations, can be fatal. 400 effective cancer cures kept secret, see Alternative Cancer Treatments (The Cancer Tutor Website) Pills use as directed kill over 100,000 Americans a year & given to babies, even.
Both refuse to re-legalize cannabis ("marijuana") despite it sometimes being the best treatment for 126 medical conditions, according to top expert Dr. Lester Grinspoon, retired from Harvard Medical School. It can even cure cancer when used in oil form, according to many anecdotal reports. Cannabis oil was in pharmacies until 1937.
Now we have a cancer epidemic caused by 85,000 toxic chemicals approved for our air, soil, water & food. And the antidote is illegal! Re-legalize cannabis is #1 request at whitehouse.gov, but Obama & Romney both feel cannabis users needing it for best medical treatment belong in prison! The best way to feel better is illegal. 25% of Americans in chronic pain. Best way to save many lives is illegal.
Both Obama & Romney want more wars. Maximum deaths for maximum profits? Both want unlimited and warrantless 24/7 spying on all Americans ("Patriot Act"), indefinite imprisonment without charges (NDAA).
Most in Congress bribed into approving unConstitutional bills. Supreme Court uses daffynitions to change the meaning of words in our Constitution. They're lifetime appointees (we can't vote for them).
If we get to vote for our executioner, is it a "free" country or a dictatorship? garyjohnson2012.com
Many will vote for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney that would really prefer Libertarian Gary Johnson. MSM forcing such an election result (by not mentioning Gary Johnson) doesn't seem right. Republican or Democrat seems like a 1 party dictatorship when one examines how little they differ on important issues:
Both Obama & Romney want forced participation in a Federal health care program. This would be the biggest gift to Drs & Big Pharma ever. The lowest level of coverage, catastrophic only, would require paying several thousand in premiums before emergency care could take place. Pay now or die? Or else if Feds pay most of cost, deficit spending, printing more dollars creating massive debt & hyper inflation. And many treatments, from pills to operations, can be fatal. 400 effective cancer cures kept secret, see Alternative Cancer Treatments (The Cancer Tutor Website) Pills use as directed kill over 100,000 Americans a year & given to babies, even.
Both refuse to re-legalize cannabis ("marijuana") despite it sometimes being the best treatment for 126 medical conditions, according to top expert Dr. Lester Grinspoon, retired from Harvard Medical School. It can even cure cancer when used in oil form, according to many anecdotal reports. Cannabis oil was in pharmacies until 1937.
Now we have a cancer epidemic caused by 85,000 toxic chemicals approved for our air, soil, water & food. And the antidote is illegal! Re-legalize cannabis is #1 request at whitehouse.gov, but Obama & Romney both feel cannabis users needing it for best medical treatment belong in prison! The best way to feel better is illegal. 25% of Americans in chronic pain. Best way to save many lives is illegal.
Both Obama & Romney want more wars. Maximum deaths for maximum profits? Both want unlimited and warrantless 24/7 spying on all Americans ("Patriot Act"), indefinite imprisonment without charges (NDAA).
Most in Congress bribed into approving unConstitutional bills. Supreme Court uses daffynitions to change the meaning of words in our Constitution. They're lifetime appointees (we can't vote for them).
If we get to vote for our executioner, is it a "free" country or a dictatorship? garyjohnson2012.com
I don't think that Obama and Romney are as similar as you claim. Now that the general election is underway, they have both moved to the center, in order to best attract the favor of the supposed 'middle of the road' undecided voters.
And should Obama win in November, it would not surprise me at all, if we saw some form of decriminalization of marijuana during his second term.
Right. And 70% of the American people agree with you.
70% is what you and I might call 'a democratic majority.'
But to the right wingers, 70% means 'mob rule.'
Let's try again. Democracies are FLAWED. Democracies invariably give more power to urban dwellers than non-urban dwellers. A country is made up of both urban dwellers and non-urban dwellers, and when the power balance ALWAYS gives the advantage to urban dwellers, then the non-urban dwellers are ALWAYS at a disadvantage. This is a fundamental FLAW, because a permanent power imbalance is a system of government that isn't truly responsive to the entire population. Think apartheid.
Actually, it would take a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress plus 3/4 of the States. Since more than 25% of the states have less than 10 electoral votes and thus stand to lose influence, it's not going to happen any time soon.
Thus, it's not worth even discussing.
It is worth discussing, because National Popular Vote acts in the individual states is a strategy to make the electoral college meaningless without actually dissolving it.
It is worth discussing, because National Popular Vote acts in the individual states is a strategy to make the electoral college meaningless without actually dissolving it.
When a candidate loses an election he would have won under old rules the gnashing of teeth will be a fun watch. This idea isn't some far fetched idea.
When a state that is solidly blue, ends up being forced to vote red there will be fun to be had.
I hope you don't think that parties had anything with the establishment of the electoral college by the founders.
Not at all. I'm suggesting that two specific political parties have co-opted the Electoral College System...to the effect of maintaining a cartel in regards to presidential elections.
Not at all. I'm suggesting that two specific political parties have co-opted the Electoral College System...to the effect of maintaining a cartel in regards to presidential elections.
Then perhaps it would be worth examining how they've co-opted the election process, and look for ways to deconstruct their hold on the process. That would seem to be much more productive, as the electoral college only affects the Presidential election, and if your problem is the two-party system, the majority of elections aren't for the President at all.
Not at all. I'm suggesting that two specific political parties have co-opted the Electoral College System...to the effect of maintaining a cartel in regards to presidential elections.
It is worth discussing, because National Popular Vote acts in the individual states is a strategy to make the electoral college meaningless without actually dissolving it.
There are inequalities with that too. Let's say that the two largest states, California and Texas take opposite courses. California does what you suggest, apportion electoral votes based upon the proportion a candidate receives in the popular vote, while Texas decides to keep it as a winner-take-all system.
What that does is creates an unfairness. Party "A" may traditionally win California and Party "B" may traditionally win Texas. Under this scenario, California's electoral votes get split up while Texas' electoral votes get apportioned to one candidate. Thus, Party A's candidate may very well end up with 55% of the popular vote of these two states but only receive 30% of the electoral votes of these two states. The end result is an increasing chance that presidents will be elected with a minority of the overall popular vote.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
