> Arguing that the US is not less totalitarian then North Korea
> is a good way to get anything else you say ignored.
I know that but hope that at least some will get the message. I don't care about being politically correct or "being nice" as in trying to please anyone to get their attention.
> One test for totalitarian states
As seen on TV (c)
> is if they're trying to stop their citizens from leaving.
Another one is total surveillance. Do you leave often? And do you communicate often?
> A totalitarian state requires a ruler; the US had 535 congresspeople,
> one president and nine Supreme Court justices
This means nothing, alas. Do you elect neoconservators? Can you choose to stop the war in Afghanistan or Syria? Ask General Wesley Clark.
Heck, you cannot even choose to have your own currency -- not the one you borrow from the private gang named FRS but the state one as in Executive Order #11110. And it's a real trouble, wish you could overcome that.
> but not that one group gets to rig them everytime
Excellent, that's what they sold you: a smoke screen showing you some "choice" that isn't there actually.
We've seen that very crap here in Ukraine since so called "orange revolution": two presidents who ought to act quite differently but do basically the same, two parliaments which... don't actually differ as well. And the forces pressing them *against* Ukrainian people seem to be pretty consistent in what they do over the years.
> unity is not exactly one of its features
Look at what they do, not what they say.
If any of the parties takes the Snowden opportunity to blame their "opponents" and dismantle the surveillance system for real, you're right. But it will survive unfortunately.
My point is not to make you think the way I do. It is to help you start noticing simple things they haven't told you about that are observable immediately and do not require trust in me or anyone for you to see.