Which Presidential candidate is the most likely to make steps towards legalization?

*claps*

 

1. I don't like your posts.
2. i agree with most of the others that disagree with you here
3. ron paul isn't 3rd party

 

voting for a president just because he looks like the one who is about to win is probably the most ridiculous thing ever.

a) the more popular the candidate you vote for the less your vote counts (the difference between 1% and 2% is huge compared to 98% and 99%)
b) it says more if you vote for a candidate, like kucinich, who supports legalization of marijuana that somebody who is in the middle. If kucinich got 10% of the vote (i'm sure atleast 10% of voters are potheads) that would really say something. Politicians would think twice when voting for medical marijuana etc.

 

^not really, 90% of the voters are still against it in that case

 

my candidate isn't 3rd party he is a libertarian in a republicans suit. he is on the republican party.

maybe if there were more people like me, Ron Paul would win and there would be real justice and freedom in this country. if you are registered republican then vote for Ron Paul in the primaries.

he is no republocrat robot puppet. he is real. don't fall for the systems tricks. they are throwing black and female candidates at you to try to trick you. they want to make you think that since they look different then what we have had in the past, that makes them 'Change'. but they are not change, they are rpublocrat puppets. it will be the same old "and cameras on every corner" deal. fight for true freedom, and justice, vote Ron Paul(in the primaries, and in the 08 elections.)

 

That's not true because politicians realize most people vote for the popular candidate. If an unusually large number of people vote for a lesser-known candidate that supports marijuana it would show that people are especially interested in legal marijuana, so much so that they chose that candidate over a more popular one.

 

i doubt very much that any of them are, whatever they might otherwise claim, because no one makes the first cut without the corporate nod, and corporate/economic intrests are the main source of having made and kept it unlawful in the first place.

politics is politics though, and there's no forgone conclusion that it can't or won't happen, just that none of them, going in, are likely to have doing so high on their agenda of what they wish to achieve.

=^^=
.../\...