TRUE OR FALSE. Until we can answer this question correctly, there is no hope for reform.
Submitted by Jack Pelham on Fri, 05/08/2009 - 19:26
True or False:
It is better not to vote at all than to vote for a candidate who we do not believe intends to be a faithful public servant---limiting himself to the powers vested in the office he seeks, and using his full checks and balances powers to keep the rest of the government abiding by the law, too.
True or False?
What do you think?
»
FALSE! just ask the black people in this country
just ask the black people in this country how not voting has worked out for them the last 40 years.................um wut?
pwnd.
B.R.O * M.I.K.E.
9/11 Lessons From Star Trek-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CyjD6Ulf6s&feature=channel_page
'9/11 Conspiracy Theories Ridiculous' - Al Qaeda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_OIXfkXEj0&feature=dir
B.R.O * M.I.K.E.
Let's wait 4-8 years and ask how the "change" is working out.
The question is not whether a group can somehow manage to get someone elected, but whether they can find a constitutionalist to run and get elected.
The Obama experience is, therefore, irrelevant to this present thread, as he is clearly not a constitutionalist. We might as well have another round with W, as far as the Constitution is concerned.
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
yes
indeed.
Who not whom
But the answer is "yes."
Hey, thanks for the grammar tip.
I looked it up to be sure and my researched confirmed that you are right. I just changed the question.
Thanks again.
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
True. “It does not require
True.
“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds”
-Sam Adams
“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds”
-Sam Adams
I've pondered the Sam Adams quote....
...before and I'm still not sure what to make of it.
Do you suppose he's talking about a campaign of demagoguery, where only a few actually know the facts, but they get the others stirred up (brush fires) on mere emotion?
Where I have trouble is that if we're talking about the outcome of a vote, then "majority" simply must be part of the equation.
It would help, I suppose, to know the context of his statement.
Neither attribution of this statement gives a source for it:
http://books.google.com/books?id=VKqD6lVaJl8C&pg=PA109&dq=%2...
http://books.google.com/books?id=JwJnXHVnWgsC&pg=PA8&vq=%22r...
FYI, these attributions are listed at wikiquote: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Samuel_Adams
Neither cites the source. I wish that authors would cite their sources.
So what do you think about this quote? Just how would this play out?
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
Voting is a highly publisized sideshow!
Rothschild said many years ago paraphrased: " I care not what party or who rules a country, as long as I { Rothschild } control the monetary system I control the country.
Thomas Jefferson knew this when he said:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." ~Thomas Jefferson
beesting
Just a reminder about vote fraud
so we don't take our "voting power" too seriously.
Consider the testimony of election software hacker Clint Curtis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEzY2tnwExs
The lawyer working with this programmer, Raymond Lemme, was brutally murdered ("suicided") shortly after announcing he was going to go public with his investigation of vote fraud.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=...
Princeton professor and students exposing the corruptibility of Diebold software:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JESZiLpBLE
Here's an article that came out just last month- DIEBOLD ADMITS FLAW: http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/03/18/diebold-admits-vo...
And a nice parody to sum it up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF5Kdm4Eu6w&feature=related
I think we SHOULD make a big fuss for candidates that are worthy of it, to make it harder for them to pass off fake results. But I think we should also be incessantly, insistently protesting the sham election process. Threads like this reinforce the illusion that the democratic process is functioning reasonably well.
Ingrid, you are right...
when you say:
I should have incorporated into my question the phrase, "Assuming that votes are accurately collected, counted, and reported...."
This is a very troubling issue that I'm just starting to get a handle on.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
FORGET the BS
A vote for anyone you know will not be faithful in executing his duties is like endorsing their behavior..SIMPLE..There is NO lesser of 2 evils..IF you believe there is such a thing as lesser of 2 evils we will never get out of the darkness..To bring about results you need to specify what it is that you want or you will be lost in the quick sand...
you-no
Right, and this is why....
Confusious say:
And I say you're right. And this is why the Rule of Law Revolution sets out very clear and finite pledges for the candidates. Not getting bogged down into partisan issues, but keeping the scope strictly to the rule of law.
If the rule of law is indeed what we want, that's pretty easy to ask for. It's when we start building a partisan laundry list that we get into trouble. Example: "I want a candidate who is strong on defense, for limited government, against abortion, and for a line-item veto." The moment somebody goes there, there's a guy on the other side of the room hating his guts, because this other guy wants: "....a candidate who is strong on nationlized health care, will get us out of Iraq immediately, will repeal the Patriot act, and wants the government to pay for abortions for teens."
How about we just get back to a government that doesn't exceed its powers? And after that, we can debate the issues all we want----meanwhile, being assured that Congress will not be surprising us anymore by doing things in excess of its powers.
Is this what we want?
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
..
.
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
This is kind of like 'when did you stop beating your wife?
The question is loaded. You assume that anyone is capable of representing anything but their own best self interest. They're not.
Let me put it to you this way. In a hypothetical town of 10000 voters where only 5000 people show up at the polls, 2501 of those voters vote for candidate X. Candidate X is a great person, is honest, active in charity work, always pays 'their fair share' by not cheating on taxes, and is of otherwise fine character. Candidate X gets elected by a simple majority because that's the way the rules in this town have been declared by a simple majority.
Anyway, shortly after being elected, Candidate X has to make a tough choice. The economy has turned bad, everything the town needs to do costs more. The town employees need a raise just as badly as everyone else in the private sector. And to make matters worse, it's contract time negotiation time with the town's workers. So, in order to keep the town running and 'vital' services at hand, Candidate X has to succumb to the demands of the union to raise wages, increase benefits, and sweeten the retirement fund. It's a tough choice to make, but Candidate X does it so that the 'greater good' of the town doesn't suffer. After all, without the 'vital services' the town provides, there'd certainly be chaos, right?
In order to pay for the increase in the cost of government 'services' Candidate X raises taxes. Candidate X really has no choice, because it's for the good of 'the people'. At least Candidate X can take some solace in the idea that the majority of 'the people' elected him/her, and that the 'majority' of people entrusted that decision to him/her.
But it's all a lie. The majority didn't vote, did they? Let me put that another way for you. The majority of the people cast a ballot for NO ONE.
If I asked you if you'd like me to break your nose or punch you in the balls, which would you choose? Or would you be smart enough to say "no thanks' and just walk away?
You hit the nail on the head.
:)
Over thirty years ago
I filed a decertification petition with the National Relations Labor Board (NLRB) to kick out the International Brotherhood of Teamsters as our negotiating representatives where I worked. Our lawyer that we hired told me after the administrative NLRB hearing, if we prevail in starting our own union, in a few years we wouldn't be any different than the IBOT. Back then, I didn't know what the hell he was talking about, but I do now.
Point being: Power corrupts.
Incidentally, the above Jewish attorney that represented us probably learned more at the dinner table growing up than all us gentiles put together.
Incidentally, we lost our petition to decertify to start our own union, the anti-union President Regan administration had the NLRB stacked.
Muzzletof
I respectfully disagree with the spirit of your assertion....
You wrote:
What if it is in a candidate's "own best self interest" to be a public servant and to obey the founding charter for the governmental body in which he serves?
I submit that it is altogether possible for an incumbent's self interests and the public interest to be the same thing. Even in the case of bribery attempts, there are certainly some incumbents who do not see the offered bribes as being in their own best interests---and who will reject them accordingly.
Just because there are very few such people does not mean that no one is "capable", as you put it, of being such a person.
I, for one, would consider it an honor to be asked to serve in the government on behalf of the public interest.
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
I appreciate your response. However, you miss an obvious point
That politician who makes a choice to 'be a public servant' does so for their own reasons. Furthermore, the alignment of interests of a politician with a number of their constituents does not mean that that politician isn't doing what is in their own self interest either; it simply means that the constituents who share the politicians views happen to benefit.
And I have to disagree. There is no sane person capable of doing anything other than representing their own best self interests. If a politician does something that does not align with their own self interests, it must be because they expect a different benefit later on down the road.
Lastly, although I believe that you would do you best to serve in the government in the 'public' interest, how do you define the 'public'? And who of 'the public' would you tax? Who's money would you take without asking? What programs would you spend it on in contradiction to the values of certain individuals in your constituency? How could you stand up for the rights of each and every single one of 'the people' with whom you had been entrusted to represent?
I believe you want liberty, I do. But to force any individual to give up their property, to act in certain ways, or to obey any law other than to not to aggress on anyone else is simply wrong.
Remember, government is force. Government can not be government if it is not force.
None, thanks for the conversation.....
On the following part, do you have any data to back this up?:
Is this a logical conclusion you have reached? Do you have empirical data for this? Or is it just a cynical conclusion?
See, I think that I can disprove it by the example of a few people I know, myself included. I love to be the referee in volleyball, because I get to see to it that both sides are treated according to the rules (even if they hate my guts because of their bias). And I love to tell the truth about government, even if I am opposed by the establishment and attacked and threatened in various ways. And if I were an elected official, I would consider it an honor to do my job faithfully without consideration for whether I might benefit personally from it.
So you're basically telling me that it's impossible for me to be who I think I am. And if you're right about that, I'd sure like to see the data!
Also, please clear this up for me. You wrote:
Are you thinking that I'm in favor of unjust laws and the confiscation of property? If I'm sending that signal somehow, I sure wish you'd tell me where so I can go edit it. That is certainly not what I believe.
Jack
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
Almost the EXACT situation happened to me as Mayor
I had absolutely no choice but to raise property taxes by $0.15 and it killed me because I'm utterly opposed to tax increases. But what can you do? Your choices in a legislative body are "yes" and "no" there is no middle ground, there's no "if this,maybe that", it's red button or green button. That's what most people fail to realize. They also fail to realize that municipal and federal politicians have DIFFERENT jobs and the US Constitution is not going to get any potholes filled.
When I was running for mayor, a lot of people asked my position on abortion because they were too uninformed to know I have no say one way or the other---my canned response, "my position is: I'm glad none of our mothers aborted any of us here tonight."
You should run for office and enjoy the ride.
Explore Orthodox Christianity
You didn't violate the US Constitution by raising local taxes.
Mike,
You are so right when you say that most people don't understand the differences between Federal, State, and Local governments.
When you chose to raise the taxes, obviously you didn't do it because you thought it was somehow best for you personally (like you were getting a commission on the increase). Rather, you seem to have done it because you saw no other choice by which the public could be well served.
Btu this is a far cry from how others behave in office. I know of one small town City Council, for example, who just broke both state law and their own charter to charge $1 per page for copies of public records. This they did because crazy citizens (me, mostly) were actually asking to see the financial records of the city! It seems I didn't "know my place", else I wouldn't have been expecting transparency in government.
While such scoundrels abound, we ought not to assume it impossible that a just public servant could exist.
Thanks for your hard work.
As to running for public office, on my first venture (last year) in that direction, I ended up exposing a local mafia who invited me either to die or to leave town! (And some of them might well be satisfied with BOTH!) Since I left, they succeeded in stacking the entire city council with their own members---even re-electing a mayor who was indicted just last year for official misconduct.
So that's chapter one in my intentions for a career in public service!
We'll see what comes next!
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
HMM:
Sounds exactly like the town I live in.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I love my country
I am appalled by my government
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I love my country
I am appalled by my government
True....if there's no one on the ballot you'd support.
It's better not to vote for a scoundrel that's on the ballot. The conclusion that there is no hope is false. It just means at a particular time that we don't have a candidate that'll support our views....that's ON the ballot.
This past November, I "wrote-in" Ron Paul for president. Did I waste my vote? No, of course not. The idea of "strategy voting" (i.e. people voting for McCain and AGAINST Obama) is ridiculous. Whoever you'd like to see in office....write him in if he's not on the ballot.
By your definition
it looks like from our answers that there is no hope for us. But I think there is and that the answers prove that we all think for ourselves and within the boundaries of particular facts instead of generalities.
Ah, but if everybody here went home to watch Oprah.....
....and in the mean time, Jack showed up next near with 100 constitutionalist candidates for Congress, then wouldn't we all have something to "do" here? Wouldn't there be one heck of a bandwagon to be jumped upon?
Again, I'm not talking about just sitting around and hoping for something nice to happen. No sir. (Or mam.) Rather, I'm talking about an exhaustive campaign to find and support such candidates. I'm talking about building mass and speed (which, scientifically speaking is to build "force"). I'm talking about something we can actually be involved in doing. And we can track our progress quite easily
But as to the answers so far on this thread, it seems like it's split roughly 50/50 between those who are already clearly decided not to vote for a bad candidate and those who think that it's better to "participate" in voting for a bad one than not to vote at all.
If that's indicative of all Ron Paul supporters, then that means about half a million people (at least) could pitch in to the Rule of Law Revolution from the get-go.
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
you have to be careful even
you have to be careful even registering to vote. currently the only way to register is as a "citizen of the United States", which is defined in a different way than you would expect. If you register as a citizen of the US, you are declaring yourself as a federal citizen.
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Citizenship/WhyAN...
I suggest this if you do want to vote, without declaring that you are a "federal" employee!
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Emancipation/VoterRe...
It's a complicated question
because it doesn't state if we do have a choice in a potential candidate that will uphold our values. We always have a choice in an underdog. Even if that underdog has no chance, we still need to vote for him to send a message to the election fixers that we are here and we have huge numbers. Not voting at all says nothing is no action and therefor is anti American. the movement should always vote for the independent minor party in every race that comes up. Only way for visibility in alternate parties and for people to see large numbers picking someone else. The drones don't think they follow. We need to show them there is another option to follow.
Not just to "send a message"!
The real "message" is not "Oh look, X Million people abstained from voting this time." Rather, the message should be:
"Hey, you know those X Million people who abstained from voting last time? Well, they've gone off and found themselves a new breed of candidate and they're posing a real threat for the next election."
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
declaring independance,and sovereignty are a form of voting
also.
"Stop paying lip service to the Constitution,and OBEY IT!"-Ron Paul
exactly!!
exactly!!