[America's next President should do the following things:]
Reduce pollution
Reduce the sale of guns and drugs - over 20.000 people in America have a gun
Reduce the amount of unhealthy food - come on people fried chicken isn't a vegetable
Reduce: crime, prostitutes, drug users, illness
[Edited heavily for spelling, etc.]
I ask you, what place does the government have in the management of pollution? Surely, government did not change gasoline, what was at one time an
INDUSTRIAL WASTE PRODUCT, into a viable commercial commodity. And I haven't even begun when it comes to China - firsthand accounts of various cities there paint a picture of a heavily polluted cityscape, far in excess of most, if not all, American cities.
You want Americans to reduce legal gun sales? Why? Guns, in and of themselves, do not and furthermore
cannot commit a crime. Encouraging law-abiding citizens to have the means to defend themselves levels the playing field, as it were - one certainly cannot somehow manage to take all guns away from all lawbreakers, before the fact. It is simply not possible.
Reduce the sale of drugs? How? The best way to strangle any industry, shady or otherwise, is to place it under significant government regulation and taxation - i.e. turn it into a legal, but regulated trade. Prices go down, drug-providers can take disputes to the courts as opposed to the streets, and people in government suddenly have a repeat of the end of Prohibition - that is to say, the Gravy Train comes to a screeching halt.
Reduce the amount of unhealthy food - and replace it with what? Government issue paste? No, thank you; having dealt with public school cafeterias in the past, I would just as soon avoid repeating the experience.
Reduce crime, prostitutes, drug users, illness - all laudable goals. Now, how in blazes is an American government going to go about doing so, particularly on the illness matter? Remember, whatever a government does, it has to pay for, and as I have been reminded by those of my acquaintance, the Bush 43 administration has, in conjunction with Congress, managed to significantly increase America's National Debt. Now, government-issued bonds are, in fact, marketable goods in and of themselves, but I suspect that borrowing more money is simply borrowing more trouble.
Excelsior190 said:
Yes it is time the Americans had a woman or coloured person [for President] instead of white males.
[Edited for spelling, etc.]
I've always found it hilarious that those who claim to actively seek equality between all people simultaneously differentiate between genders, racial traits, and so forth. It seems somehow counterintuitive. Personally, I'm more worried about whether or not whomever is sent to the Oval Office is trustworthy, and willing to perform the duties of the office, as opposed to using it to benefit his/her own ends, and ONLY those ends.
CrazyFrog1903 said:
I was refering to the whole process. As it has been said many times before. Delegates just like electors don't have to vote or give support to whom they are told to.
If I understand correctly, whomever a delegate claims to support gets that vote at convention the first go-round, and perhaps the second, if no candidate gets sufficient votes.
At that point, a brokered convention occurs, where delegates are up for grabs. As for the Electoral College, the only occurrence I can recall of defecting electors, at least during the Twentieth Century, was during an election in which William Jennings Bryant was participating. If the Electoral College can't select the President, then the matter goes to the House of Representatives. I believe that this has occurred in the past, but I can't recall the details, though the name Henry Clay jumps to mind, oddly enough.
), Obama will probably carry most of the African American vote, and nobody's going to elect a Republican, not this soon after what I like to call "The Bush Catastrophe".
<<<<
