|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Moderator, Registered, Administrators
Joined: 6/17/2009
Posts: 187
|
Hello All! Our intent for this forum is to discuss any of the following as relates to the Candidate Questionnaire: * Its format / methodology: the for/against choice limitation, how many questions should be asked, etc. * Suggested questions you believe should be added * Wording and/or relevancy of each question: every question is numbered according to its placement in the Questionnaire and posted as its own topic so that we can limit the conversation to that question specifically. If you believe the question should be reworded, give your suggested version. If you believe the question should be removed from the Questionnaire altogether, give your best argument as to why. As such, this forum does not allow posting new topics - you may only reply to existing topics so that we can efficiently organize your comments and improve the Questionnaire. Thanks! edub
GOOOH Co-Founder and Forum Admin
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/15/2009
Posts: 29
|
There is no topic in this forum for discussing the format specifically. I believe that in addtion to the for/against choice required there should be a space for candidates to explain their stand.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/15/2009
Posts: 29
|
I also cannot find a topic for discussing potential new questions - it only seems to be set up to discuss the existing questions (I think it is doing a great job on that purpose).
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/27/2009
Posts: 3
|
I belong to a trade association and we used to go to Washington to talk to our congressmen. We usually ended up talking to a staffer. We all got so tired of talking to young kids who never held a real job that we quit going to Washington. I would love to see the candidates commit to having only staffers who have had real jobs, no college kids who have never worked at a real job.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/20/2009
Posts: 2
Location: Amherst, Ohio
|
robartsd wrote:There is no topic in this forum for discussing the format specifically. I believe that in addtion to the for/against choice required there should be a space for candidates to explain their stand. I believe some of the questions are too vague for a "for or against" answer. I am typically against anything that includes "all" or "never". Also, I am against amending the Constitution with very limited exceptions, and many of my responses to the questions were "against" because of amending of the Constitution, while I may support the subject matter in the question. I think "amending the Constitution" should be removed from some of the questions and/or provided as an option, so that my beliefs can be communicated.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/20/2009
Posts: 2
Location: Amherst, Ohio
|
robartsd wrote:There is no topic in this forum for discussing the format specifically. I believe that in addtion to the for/against choice required there should be a space for candidates to explain their stand. I believe some of the questions are too vague for a "for or against" answer. I am typically against anything that includes "all" or "never". Also, I am against amending the Constitution with very limited exceptions, and many of my responses to the questions were "against" because of amending of the Constitution, while I may support the subject matter in the question. I think "amending the Constitution" should be removed from some of the questions and/or provided as an option, so that my positions can be communicated.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 9/26/2009
Posts: 283
Location: League City, Texas
|
The purpose of the question is just that. It is for discussion during the mock selection session. You might have a position on a topic but would not entertain a constitutional amendment. That is fine. So, in that instance, you would be against a constitutional amendment. Once you have been a part of a mock selection session, the full understanding of the purpose of the question will not be understood. Preston Tullos GOOOH Texas State Coordinator goooh.tx@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/20/2009
Posts: 2
|
robartsd wrote:There is no topic in this forum for discussing the format specifically. I believe that in addtion to the for/against choice required there should be a space for candidates to explain their stand. It appears that money already rules the selection process. anyone who doesn't have 1000 dollars to throw around is automatically eliminated.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Moderator, Registered, Administrators
Joined: 6/17/2009
Posts: 187
|
originalist, The donation is for $100, not $1,000. Here's the rationale for the $100 from the FAQs: Quote:Why do I have to pay $100 to participate in the Candidate Selection Sessions?
The Republicans and Democrats will spend over a billion dollars on the 435 House races, with most of that money coming from special interest groups. We need money to compete, but accepting special interest group funding is absolutely unacceptable to us because of the voting "favors" they expect in exchange for their money. If every Candidate Selection Session participant contributes $100 to the shared campaign pool, GOOOH will have ample funds to launch a top-tier national campaign on behalf of all 435 GOOOH candidates. Another reason for the $100 contribution is to act as a filter: we only want people who believe in the GOOOH process to participate - and a $100 investment is a good proof-test of this. It's also practical: to have the skills necessary to be a U.S. Representative you need to be persuasive enough to raise $100 from your family, friends, co-workers, etc. By the way, if you have a better way to fund the campaign, please post in the forum and let us know! Do you have a better way to sever ties with special interest money and at the same time fund a national campaign for 435 GOOOH Candidates to compete against the billion-dollar campaigns the Republicans and Democrats will run in the 2010 House elections? edub
GOOOH Co-Founder and Forum Admin
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/1/2009
Posts: 6
|
edub wrote:Hello All!
Our intent for this forum is to discuss any of the following as relates to the Candidate Questionnaire:
* Its format / methodology: the for/against choice limitation, how many questions should be asked, etc.
* Suggested questions you believe should be added
* Wording and/or relevancy of each question: every question is numbered according to its placement in the Questionnaire and posted as its own topic so that we can limit the conversation to that question specifically. If you believe the question should be reworded, give your suggested version. If you believe the question should be removed from the Questionnaire altogether, give your best argument as to why.
As such, this forum does not allow posting new topics - you may only reply to existing topics so that we can efficiently organize your comments and improve the Questionnaire.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/1/2009
Posts: 6
|
I have just completed the candidate questionnaire and would like to become a candidate, but I cannot in good faith sign the pledge. Most of the questions over-simplify complex issues and many of them would cause even more federal intrusion into state matters. I will give just one example: Question 50 involves removing the bottom 3% of teachers; as a teacher for 45 years I would argue it's impossible to evaluate teachers with that precision. How do you compare a physics teacher to a physical education teacher or a calculus teacher to a choir teacher. Although I very much support eliminating incompetent teachers, I believe it needs to be a local decision.
Because of over-simplification issues, I cannot give a meaningful and binding response to most of the questions.
I also think there are far too many questions. Ten or twenty questions which deal with basic principles and philosophy would be much more beneficial.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/19/2009
Posts: 1
|
Many of the questions are based upon being a member of the United States House of Representatives or the US Senate. As such, many of the issues you ask my opinion of I have to vote against, specifically because they violate 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution. Plain and simple, they are not matters for the federal government. My answers to many would change significantly if I were in the state legislature.
We know how badly the two parties handle things now. We need to be armed with the Constitution (my copy is on my desk), and make sure that we are guided by it.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 9/26/2009
Posts: 283
Location: League City, Texas
|
BruceInVA: You have found the secret. You may be for or against an issue, but feel that it isn't worthy of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. These questions are designed for discussion in the selection session. Everybody needs to be a part of a mock selection session to see how these questions interact in the session. Preston Tullos GOOOH Texas State Coordinator goooh.tx@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/25/2009
Posts: 3
|
Ques. 11: To what does “guiding principle” refer in this question? Is it the principle clearly espoused in the Constitution; or a popular idea of a current generation?
Why are so many of these questions framed around AMENDING the Constitution? WE NEED TO ENFORCE OUR CONSTITUTION; NOT AMEND IT!
Ques. 14: This question is framed to be directed only toward the practice of Christianity. We must realize the enemy will immediately pervert it for a use other than the aim intended.
It is necessary to look at the use of this ANSWER by an enemy. They will usurp the freedom for Christianity (the PRINCIPLE of the Founders), as they already do, to bring in religions of occultism & demand free expression of evil (heinous crimes are involved in their “freedom”).
We must NOT allow CRIMINAL actions to be practiced under the disguise of religious freedom!
Ques. 15: The first way to pervert this is for Islam to demand to teach the Koran. America is SO FAR GONE that we must word these questions not only as we intend them; but with foresight into how forces of evil will use them against us. We must make laws that BUILD America & DEFEAT our enemies; NOT play into their hands!
Ques. 35: No minimum wage would result in enslavement. The nature of man is to oppress those in his power. The employee must have some rights to a minimum wage as a protection & defense against unscrupulous employers. It also safeguards us against illegals being hired to replace Americans.
Ques. 49: The corruption at state level education is so deep that NOTHING will be accomplished by allowing those who administer a tyrannical, anti-educational system to gain/retain power.
There is a SYSTEM & there is a PROFESSION. The 2 have NOTHING to do with each other. The public is trained to believe they are one & the same. This is absolutely false! The teaching PROFESSION needs to be allowed to operate according to it’s principles & abilities, instead of being smothered, threatened, opposed, & hamstrung by anti-educational bureaucratic systems. Keeping personality types, inclined to do at the state level just what the federal level does, SOLVES NOTHING!
Ques. 52: Unless it can be determined that the “student” & family in question are capable & willing to behave well, study hard, produce good grades, & cooperate with teachers, no vouchers should be granted. Moving troublemakers from a poor school to a good one only infects the new arena with deep problems & sets a precedent for swarms to follow their example. The result is the downfall of good schools & NO change in the bad ones.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Moderator, Registered, Administrators
Joined: 6/17/2009
Posts: 187
|
PugnaciousPatriot, From the FAQs: Quote: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 for the sake of peer evaluation. 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, some seem to advocate a "Living Constitution" position, some seem to advocate Constitutional amendments, while others do not.
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. edub
GOOOH Co-Founder and Forum Admin
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/24/2009
Posts: 1
|
While I understand that the questions is to get a "feel" for a candidate's thought processes, I agree with Robert that a "qualifing" selection would be helpful. For instance, #10-13 are worded for us to vote on ammendments. Having been around for the ERA ammendment, it truly is a people process and I wouldn't be arrogant enough to assume that my vote would mean anything.
Questions 55-64 are part of the judicial checks and balances not legislative.
I have no idea where #71 "offshore" prisons meant and hated to click a for or against without further study. The same could be said for #118.
Then you have #83, #101, and #107 (among others)that contain two parts. I would agree with one, not the other.
Oh, what's a candidate to do? Already, I'm beginning to see that this is easier in the comfort of my own home and paradigms than out in the big bad world. I just know that we have to have people in there that consider this a service, not a career.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/20/2009
Posts: 1
|
I would like to suggest the following candidate questions:
1. Will you vote for or against providing government funds to the ACORN and similar groups?
2.Will you vote for or against voter positive identification through a voter ID card or finger print – insuring 1 person 1 vote.
3.Will you vote for against eliminating the current 0 budgeting policy and replacing it with a system that would promote financial responsibility at all levels of the federal government.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/1/2009
Posts: 6
|
e-mark wrote:I would like to suggest the following candidate questions:
1. Will you vote for or against providing government funds to the ACORN and similar groups?
2.Will you vote for or against voter positive identification through a voter ID card or finger print – insuring 1 person 1 vote.
3.Will you vote for against eliminating the current 0 budgeting policy and replacing it with a system that would promote financial responsibility at all levels of the federal government. This is example of what is wrong with the existing questionnaire: it requires a binding commitment to vague statements. (I realize that the above is only a suggestion, but the suggestions are similar to the existing questionnaire.) Who is going to define "similar groups" to ACORN or what is a "system that would promote financial responsibility. . .."
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/7/2010
Posts: 1
|
At this point it seems more appropriate to be asking questions that measure philosophic stance (e.g., for or against term limits) rather than for or against specific legislation (e.g., 4 years for house members).
Also, what is it with all of the lawyer-related questions? I am not a particular fan of the legal profession but someone at GOOOH has obvious issues with attorneys.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 9/26/2009
Posts: 283
Location: League City, Texas
|
At the initial concept of GOOOH, one of the things that Tim had noticed were the numbers of lawyers that were Representatives. In putting 2 and 2 together, lawyers were running the government. And since the House of Representatives got away from the people, his idea initially was to ban lawyers and extremely wealthy people from participating. However, through the GOOOH members, eventually lawyers and wealthy people were allowed to participate like everybody else, except that they have to disclose that they are lawyers or that they make over a certain amount of money. People realize that it isn't the profession or the amount of money that makes one corrupt. I hope this helps explain the situation. Preston Tullos GOOOH Texas State Coordinator goooh.tx@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
