GOOOH
GOOOH
GOOOH
GOOOH
GOOOH
Home Learn Discuss Act Donate Media Store
Skip Navigation Links  [ SIGN IN OR JOIN NOW ]
Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics |

7 Pages <1234>»
Suggested Questions for Inclusion Options
joestrix
#21 Posted : Sunday, August 9, 2009 2:51:15 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 8/5/2009
Posts: 93
Location: Carmel Valley, CA
First let me say, I am all in favor of the basic concept of GOOOH, and my beliefs seem to be (for the most part) in line with the non-platform platform.

However, I think that we could attract significantly more members in a much shorter period of time if we narrowed our wish list on the first go around (2010).
How about the following in any order:

1. Border protection.
2. English only.
3. Repeal the 14th Amendment.(Retroactive to the 80's amnesty)
4. Absolutely no benefits for illegal aliens,or their offspring...NONE!
5. Harsh penalties for employers of the same.
6. Tort reform (loser pays?).
7. Complete disclosure of every donation, gift and/or perk to everyone occupying or running for every office from 5 years before through time in office.
8. No junkets whatsoever.
9. Leaving the UN and sending it to France.
10.No pork of any kind ever.
11.Ethics committees for all branches formed of randomly selected voters.
12.No bailouts or buyins period.

Any other ideas for a shortened wish list?
robartsd
#22 Posted : Saturday, August 15, 2009 4:39:37 PM
Rank: Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 8/15/2009
Posts: 29
Dr.N0 wrote:
Eighty-five years after the Independence of the united States, seven southern nation States of America walked out of the Second Session of the thirty-sixth Congress on March 27, 1861. In so doing, the Constitutional due process quorum necessary for Congress to vote was lost and Congress was adjourned sine die, or “without day.” This meant that there was no lawful quorum to set a specific day and time to reconvene which dissolved Congress. This dissolution automatically took place because there were no provisions within the Constitution allowing the passage of any Congressional vote without a quorum.

Lincoln's second executive order of April, 1861, called Congress back into session days later, but not under the lawful authority of the Constitution.


Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution provides presidential powers with regards to congress. The president is given the power to convene congress "on extraordinary Occasions" in this section. He also can arbitrate the time of adjournment when congress cannot come to agreement on the issue. I personally feel that several states withdrawing from the Union qualifies as an extraordinary occasion.
robartsd
#23 Posted : Saturday, August 15, 2009 6:54:56 PM
Rank: Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 8/15/2009
Posts: 29
In my opinion, the biggest issue that needs address is the Federal Reserve System and monetary policy. Questions could include:

Do you support a complete audit of the Federal Reserve System?
Do you support abolishing a central bank?
Do you support restricting legal tender status to gold and silver?


Tort reform is also a topic I think should be included. Some possible questions:

Do you support a limit on punitive damages awarded?
Do you support plaintiff attorney liability for defense costs in frivolous lawsuits?
Do you support restricting conditional attorney fees?


I also would support questions on the Enumerated Powers Act and/or the Fiscal Responsibility Act mentioned by an earlier poster.
cayla
#24 Posted : Sunday, August 30, 2009 12:21:51 PM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 8/30/2009
Posts: 1
I feel they must pass the following questions prior to even considering them for office.

Do you promise to only vote in favor of laws in which you actually have the CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to enact?

Do you know what powers the constitution has granted congress and what powers it has not? Please list them.


Here are the answers:

Powers given:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Powers denied: anything and everything not listed above (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.)
emily3264
#25 Posted : Tuesday, September 1, 2009 12:36:31 PM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 7/29/2009
Posts: 3
I think Cayla is moving in the right direction. I would take that entire questionaire and re-organize it so that all the questions were grouped under the Constitutional power they best relate to. I'm sorry but GOOOH is turning into a mish-mash of individual opinions instead of a group re-framing the principles we should govern my based on the realities today. I will state once again that the questionaire is a good basis for a filter but it is not the basis for a contract. The contract needs to be based on a finite number of clearly stated principles that will best assist this country in getting on back on track.
Braveheart
#26 Posted : Thursday, September 3, 2009 8:51:28 AM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 7/30/2009
Posts: 1
Federal employees, including the Congress should not be allowed to exempt themselves from laws passed to regulate us, thus

Would you vote to make Congress participate in Social Security? No more lifetime salary perks!

Would you vote to make Congress participate in the same healthcare system that folks bacvk home have?

Would you vote to make every law apply to Congress as well as everyone else equally?

If the laws passed by Congress applied to them, we would have reform overnight.
theDfactor
#27 Posted : Friday, September 11, 2009 9:18:07 PM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 9/7/2009
Posts: 1
Please… Please… I believe there is a good possibility, and I am very hopeful that GOOOH can produce some new candidates for Congress…
However. I am very concerned that some of the questions already on the questionnaire and far too many of the questions being suggested are in direct conflict with the true meaning of the 10th. Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Always bear this in mind when proposing a question on what you might or might not vote for:
Does it violate any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights…?
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is a legally binding document that describes the duties of the Federal Government, but most importantly what the federal Government CANNOT DO.
Congressmen and Congresswomen must protect their respective states by voting against any Federal provision or law that violates the rights granted to the states and not to the Federal Government… Period.
Congressmen and Congresswomen represent the state in which they reside, not the Federal Government, so they should not be proposing laws or regulations that the Constitution purposefully left for the individual states to decide.
I believe that virtually everyone that is a member or considering being a member and possibly running for office wants to see the existing corrupt Federal Government un-corrupted.
There is but one way that will come about, and that will only be accomplished when the size of the Federal Government is reduced by literally reducing its effect on the individual states.
Be very clear on why you want to run for office, because if you simply want to clean-up the status quo, then you will not get my vote. The size and over-reaching behavior of the Federal Government must be reduced and any law or provision that does not meet the strict interpretation of the 10th. Amendment must not be voted for.
button123
#28 Posted : Saturday, September 12, 2009 8:35:09 PM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 9/12/2009
Posts: 2
New question suggestion:
For or against all new bills must contain a provision that repeals at least one specific existing law.

Perhaps a provision such as this would induce lawmakers to consider more carefully what they may have to give up in order to get what they want.
miked1234
#29 Posted : Monday, September 14, 2009 9:43:22 AM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 9/14/2009
Posts: 1
I would like to propose a questionnaire question for consideration:

Would you be for or against a pledge by potential or elected candidates to refuse to meet with any paid lobbyist?
pamhoward
#30 Posted : Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:37:58 PM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 7/22/2009
Posts: 7
I would like to see a question addressing whether one would vote for or against a ban on "straight ticket" or "one-party" voting. As a precinct official in my community, I personally see how this affects elections negatively and voters don't even know they're doing it. Voters should have to make a choice in each race, or not, but NO "just pull one lever" voting.
Comments?
windsearcher@yahoo.com
#31 Posted : Wednesday, September 16, 2009 7:59:01 PM
Rank: Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 9/16/2009
Posts: 13
I think Cayla and the Dfactor have it right..... congress needs to understand exactly what their powers and authorities are. They have limited powers and more than anything, they need to understand exactly what they can/can't do.

Perhaps the best question(s) that can be asked have something to do with "What are the limits on congressional power"...... "where do the federal government's powers come from".... or something along those lines.
TCPatriot
#32 Posted : Sunday, September 20, 2009 12:22:32 AM
Rank: Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 7/5/2009
Posts: 20
Location: N.E. Ohio
Dr No you said, "AGREE WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND MISSION OF GOOOH, but their unconstitutional extremist positions regarding things like term limits, individual freedom (campaign financing), and inclusiveness or exclusiveness (who may or may not be included and also requiring a $100 donation to take part - totally illegal by the way), and some ideas being entertained such as Tort reform and malpractice caps ARE ALL TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE and just plain WRONG."

Sir could you please tell me what is illegal about funding goooh in this manner. I believe this is the best way to fund candidacies. If there are no special interest, no big business and most importantly an opportunity to choose the best among us. Sir have you ever read Washington’s farewell address? I fear that only a Lawyer would be concerned about TORT reform and mal practice caps as they are driving up our medical cost.

Recently my wife had surgery, and although her tubes are tied, they still did a pregnancy test as a precaution. Now I ask you; do we really need to do something about the malpractice lawsuits in this country? What is wrong is that our Doctors and hospitals have to perform unnecessary test and procedures to protect themselves from legal action.
TCPatriot
#33 Posted : Sunday, September 20, 2009 12:39:44 AM
Rank: Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 7/5/2009
Posts: 20
Location: N.E. Ohio
Dr.N0 wrote:
Tort law, which encompasses what is commonly referred to as "frivolous lawsuits" serves an important role in our society.

Any Political Science student in a 101 or 201 level class should be able to tell you that the courts serve in many cases to be the ONLY place that the citizenry are able to demand justice from an unjustly imbalanced society. Unfortunately, our society has been given over to more rights in the hands of non-human corporate interests rather than in the very hands of the people themselves.

The idea that medical costs are skyrocketing because of "frivolous" lawsuits is ridiculous. Medical costs are out of this world because our government has allowed (in fact created and nurtured) a monopolistic playground for insurance, big pharma, big chem, and big medial in general. The sooner we bring health care back into the realm of FREE MARKETS, the sooner the costs will come back down. ONLY WHEN ALL INTERESTS INVOLVED IN THE HEALTHCARE FIELD MUST COMPETE WILL PRICES COME DOWN AND QUALITY OF SERVICE GO UP. This is what FREE MARKETS do.

The more I review what ya'll are doing here, the more it scares the hell out of me that ya'll may succeed. Ya'll are a bunch of uninformed reactionaries. You remind me of the rise of the National Socialists in 1930's Germany. You're so exited about making change, that ya'll aren't thinking things through.

Apply FREE MARKET principles to ANY social or political problem that we have today, and you will have the solution to the problem in hand.

Sir Free markets are not going to fix all of the unnecessary test and procedures that Dr’s and hospitals are forced to do to cover their butts because of the unlimited malpractice lawsuits. People have to understand that the reason things are at this point is that the Gov has slowly taking over regulating and have created this mess. There is not an American alive today who would truly know what a free market system really is, that is unless they read about it in a book. You say the Government has created a monopolistic playground for insurance, big pharma, big chem, and big medical in general is the problem. I agree to a point and I ask you, who is our government? I would also like to point out that we have one of the best medical systems in the world, just think if they could take the gloves off and didn’t have to worry about all of the defensive procedures and test.
GOOOH Moderator - Underdog
#34 Posted : Sunday, September 20, 2009 9:15:53 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered, Moderator

Joined: 9/15/2009
Posts: 52
theDfactor wrote:
Please… Please… I believe there is a good possibility, and I am very hopeful that GOOOH can produce some new candidates for Congress…
However. I am very concerned that some of the questions already on the questionnaire and far too many of the questions being suggested are in direct conflict with the true meaning of the 10th. Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Always bear this in mind when proposing a question on what you might or might not vote for:
Does it violate any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights…?
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is a legally binding document that describes the duties of the Federal Government, but most importantly what the federal Government CANNOT DO.
Congressmen and Congresswomen must protect their respective states by voting against any Federal provision or law that violates the rights granted to the states and not to the Federal Government… Period.
Congressmen and Congresswomen represent the state in which they reside, not the Federal Government, so they should not be proposing laws or regulations that the Constitution purposefully left for the individual states to decide.
I believe that virtually everyone that is a member or considering being a member and possibly running for office wants to see the existing corrupt Federal Government un-corrupted.
There is but one way that will come about, and that will only be accomplished when the size of the Federal Government is reduced by literally reducing its effect on the individual states.
Be very clear on why you want to run for office, because if you simply want to clean-up the status quo, then you will not get my vote. The size and over-reaching behavior of the Federal Government must be reduced and any law or provision that does not meet the strict interpretation of the 10th. Amendment must not be voted for.


DFactor,

Don't be alarmed!

Bear in mind, that the point of the questionnaire is not to be "exact", but to encourage thinking. These questions are often intentionally vague. The idea is to cause the candidate(s) to do their homework and to achieve a similar result in the interviewer(s).

The resulting dialog will be where the candidates are chosen, based on their reasoning, logic, and their personal ability to convey their thoughts to others.

As an example, see the awesome quality of postings here! These thought provoking statements come as a result of the members working out the "details" for these rather vague questions - a similar result will occur during the selection process.
GOOOH Moderator - Underdog
#35 Posted : Sunday, September 20, 2009 9:24:12 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered, Moderator

Joined: 9/15/2009
Posts: 52
emily3264 wrote:
I think Cayla is moving in the right direction. I would take that entire questionaire and re-organize it so that all the questions were grouped under the Constitutional power they best relate to. I'm sorry but GOOOH is turning into a mish-mash of individual opinions instead of a group re-framing the principles we should govern my based on the realities today. I will state once again that the questionaire is a good basis for a filter but it is not the basis for a contract. The contract needs to be based on a finite number of clearly stated principles that will best assist this country in getting on back on track.


Emily,

What you've stated here may not necessarily be the goal of GOOOH. The goal is to achieve TRUE representatives FROM the People via a selection process that is done by the People. Whether or not potential candidates meet the most excellent standards of the People is up to the People.

The various personal opinions are used to help select candidates by hearing their answers to these common issues. While it may seem chaotic now, much of this will become quite valuable during the selection process.
RobertMillward
#36 Posted : Sunday, September 20, 2009 12:23:06 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 9/13/2009
Posts: 123
The GOOOH methodology is a simulation and, most important, a model for the districts.

Ultimately, the districts will control the questions completely. If GOOOH were to try to step in and control those questions then they would be acting as a PAC and would be summarily dismissed.

I know that there is great fear of out-of-control government, I have that fear myself (for over 40 years). I can assure you that with due diligence (our face to face participation) we can:
1) eliminate corporations and organizations from the governmental process
2) enact the true will of the majority (85+% not 51%)
3) return to a condition which is described by the Preamble
4) greatly reduce the burden on those who do serve
5) virtually eliminate all incentive to be a career politician
6) ...

When you and I are sitting face to face then we can decide which of us and our peers is best prepared to advance through the selection process. Someone's simply wanting to advance will cost them my vote and hopefully the same would happen to me. If you are aware of the original use of the Electorial College then you know what I mean. And a liar returning to the process next time should have little chance. If a dozen liars are selected then they will be totally ineffective against the 423 non-liars. And two-dozen man years of ineffective service is far better than 870 man-years of endangering service.

With modern tools it should be possible to eliminate much of DC. If the founding fathers had the internet then only the president and the supreme court would have buildings. Of course, working from home does not preclude being influenced by other than the voters but that is recovered from in the two year election cycle of representatives.

My request of this group would be to please trust the vision of our founding fathers. Please continue to be concerned but be concerned in the framework where you will have near total control of the process and thereby the result.
I am am member of The Tea Party. If you want my vote then you must meet all of my standards.
SlaveNoMore
#37 Posted : Sunday, September 27, 2009 1:49:39 PM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 9/27/2009
Posts: 1
I would like to see laws that are currently on the books and so complex that no one can figure them out, be rewritten into logical plain English - the IRS code comes to mind.

I would also like to see the U.S. revert back to a bullion backed money standard, (ie) gold and silver, where the money is printed and coined by the government and the federal reserve is abolished.

I would like the U.S. debt to the Federal Reserve (most of which is interest) to be cancelled and forgiven just as we forgive the debts of other nations.

I would like to see State's rights preserved and the use of the "commerce clause" specifically defined so that Congress can not overstep its bounds.

I would like to see term limits on all political offices at all levels of government with the possible exception of sheriff.

I would like to see that all legislators are required to abide by the laws that they pass.

I would like to see that politicians receive no privileges beyone the privilege of working for us - they must pay for whatever they receive - franking, meals, transportation, clothing, housing, entertainment, travel, etc. Their "job" should not produce any more benefit for them than our jobs produce for us.
edub
#38 Posted : Sunday, September 27, 2009 3:04:45 PM
Rank: Administration

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Administrators

Joined: 6/17/2009
Posts: 187
All, this is a great thread, and some really great comments!

Several of you have posted about your concerns regarding the wording of the Questionnaire. Below are a few extracts from the FAQs that will shed some light on how and why the questions came to be in the current form:

Who decides what questions will be asked in the Candidate Questionnaire and Screening Exam?
We have proposed the initial set of questions and are monitoring conversations in the GOOOH discussion forums. The Question Committee will adjust the questions and screening criteria based upon forum input. In future elections, we intend for the people of each congressional district to own some or all of the questions for their district, rather than having a single set of questions for all 435 districts.


Are there "correct" answers to the Candidate Questionnaire?
No, there are not. The questions are intended to force candidates into declaring on which side of an issue they stand. The questions have been intentionally crafted so that they do not give wiggle room when answered - thus eliminating any meaningless double-talk responses that politicians are notorious for. Also, we have tried to be as thorough as possible in the categories of issues chosen, and we intentionally included the "hard issues" that politicians avoid at all costs because they are considered polarizing and may cause them to lose votes if answered frankly.

Is there an implied bias in the Candidate Questionnaire questions?
We hope not, but if you think so, please post your opinions in the Forum! The questions were written from several different perspectives in order to expose the voting and personal philosophies of each Selection Session participant. You'll notice that some of the questions are written from a "liberal" point of view and some from a "conservative" point of view. In addition, you'll notice that some seem to advocate a "Constitutional Originalist" position, while others seem to advocate amending the Constitution.

What we do hope is that many of the questions will cause you to do some deep thinking and catalyze some passionate opinions on your part. This is critical, because the answers given by your Selection Session peers to these particular questions will prove valuable in helping you decide which persons you should advance to the next round of Selection Sessions, and which you should eliminate. For example, if you are dead-set against amending the Constitution, you should eliminate your Selection Session peers that say they will vote "for" any question that seems to advocate a Constitutional amendment.

What should I do if want to select my GOOOH district candidate, but don’t want to be a candidate?
Even if you do not wish to be selected as your district’s candidate you will need to follow the six steps listed above to participate in the Candidate Selection Sessions. If you do not participate, you will not have input into who is chosen as your district's GOOOH candidate. You should participate to improve the odds that the candidate selected in your district represents your views. Every person in America should want to participate in GOOOH.
edub
GOOOH Co-Founder and Forum Admin
Claude
#39 Posted : Monday, September 28, 2009 7:44:25 PM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered

Joined: 9/6/2009
Posts: 2
I am very much in favor of "The Fair Tax", and is a must for the future prosparity of this country. Is there a particular reason, I find no discussion on this very important issue?
edub
#40 Posted : Tuesday, September 29, 2009 12:45:12 PM
Rank: Administration

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Administrators

Joined: 6/17/2009
Posts: 187
Claude, see the Fair Tax question in the Candidate Questionnaire forum
edub
GOOOH Co-Founder and Forum Admin
Users browsing this topic
Guest
7 Pages <1234>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.