|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/7/2010
Posts: 2
|
Has there been discussions concering National Security.What a candidate position is on national defense.Size and use of military.Required service to country in some form.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/5/2010
Posts: 1
|
From the Commitment letter:
"Do you commit to vote according to the answers submitted in your Candidate Questionnaire, and agree to voluntarily and immediately remove yourself from the U.S. House of Representatives if it is shown that you cast a vote that contradicts one of your questionnaire responses? Do you further agree that you will not contest this commitment in any way other than to defend yourself against false accusations?
If legislation is presented that contains more than one issue, and voting would require you to violate one of the responses in your questionnaire, you must either abstain or vote no. You should demand that the representatives presenting the legislation separate it into individual items, but understand you will be at their mercy to do so."
I am really behind the concept of GOOOH, but have big time issues with the Questionnaire. I was very excited, however as many posters have already stated, many of the questions were either too vague or even just too narrow They do appear to be slanted toward certain positions...
I thought the only plank for Goooh is term limits? I would be happier if we could narrow down the questionnaire to more like 50 or less questions and if more had to do with basic principles. So many of the questions require much research, I'm not about to answer them off the cuff. Then Some of just weird to me, for example:
*Will you vote for or against only applying the Endangered Species Act to animals that are larger in mass than a marble (i.e. eliminate protection for species such as salamanders, crickets, and spiders), unless a critical contribution to the ecosystem is defined?
I understand the question, but am sure how relevant it is to getting this movement going.
Also the question about excluding Lawyers from serving in House? I'm not a real fan of the legal profession, but I know some who are ethical and would provide good representation. I think it's wrong to even ask a question like this.Why would I want to deny the right to anyone except a convicted felon to the run for office, even if they are a whack job or a lawyer? Kinda Un-American and unconstitutional.
Also the Nambla, KKK and ACLU questions. The first two are of course horrible groups, but grouping the ACLU with them? Once again I'm not a real fan of a lot of the actions of the ACLU, but where did the idea of grouping these three come together from? I think you should ask for people to list organizations they belong to as a form of disclosure but just this weird grouping in just odd.
I think the questionnaire should be totally revamped, considering the caveats regarding changing positions that you put in the commitment letter. I just can't answer many of the questions and don't think if I did that they would fairly represent where I stand on overall issues...
I'm just talking off the cuff, but it seems that many of the question were thrown together by a group of people sitting in a room together going "Yeah and don't forget to ask this and then this too."
I think the should start off with broader ideological Questions and there ask narrower questions to pinpoint where a person is coming from.
Also on a technical note I'd like the questionnaire in a printable format - I know that's old fashioned, but I did copy it to a document and it does not print well in its table format. I'd like to be able to spend time reviewing and researching prior to answering questions that would determine my representation of people in my district if I would decide to run for office. These questions are too important to answer lightly.
Finally, there's got to be a better a way to discuss the individual questions. I've tried to go through the various posts, on the forums but there's way too many of them....I think there must be a better way to organize the process.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups:
Joined: 8/13/2009
Posts: 190
Location: Colorado
|
Since I received Tim's "Time to donate" e-mail 10 days ago, I decided to take another look at the Candidate Screening Q's. If I'm going to financially contribute, I am fully committed. And I don't think GOOOH really has its act together enough for that level of commitment. I'm very close to being "finished" with GOOOH. It started as a good idea, but it seemed to "not get legs" quickly enough. I'm not impressed by increased website visits. (Big deal!) I'm impressed when a bunch of people of good character band together with a common cause. In my state (Colorado) Tea Partiers have made HUGE gains by getting selected as Delegates, Precinct Committee People and Election Judges. If this turnaround was repeated around the country, there is (IMO) more hope for the GOP than I feared just six months ago. The Tea Partiers managed to mobilize, while GOOOH seems to be spinning its wheels. More on-topic, there are a few Candidate Screening questions I will not answer Yes to ... so I cannot be a GOOOH candidate, even if I wanted to be: Will you commit to telling the truth 100 percent accurately at all times (on issues of substance), and will you voluntarily remove yourself from office if you ever violate this promise? I can easily picture times when I would flat-out lie to certain Americans AND agents of foreign countries, because it would be in the best interests of the country and my family to do so. Will you promise not to advertise or campaign publicly for this position, nor have others campaign for you, until you reach the last round of 10 in your district? (Until GOOOH reaches critical mass in membership and we are certain we can make a run in 2010, this question will be waived. This will allow those who are attempting to run this year via the existing process to also participate in GOOOH. If you are in this position, you must let us know by June 1st. Send a note to goooh@goooh.com.) This is silly. I know a bit about survey design and such a complicated question should be stricken from the questionnaire. Will you commit to publicly supporting the GOOOH system, though you are (of course) not required to support the candidate who emerges? The "GOOOH system" seems to be too unfocused. Who in their right mind would agree to support something which is still so unclear? Not me. [As I compose this, I am grieving for my country. Those idiots in the House just passed the Reconciliation Bill. Watch the Stock Market's response to this idiocy this week. It won't be pretty....] - KK
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 9/19/2010
Posts: 1
|
Questions # 92 & 93.
Abortion should not be at the Federal level AT ALL!! The 10th Amendment so states " The powers NOT delegated the the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLE."
|
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Moderator, Registered, Administrators
Joined: 6/16/2009
Posts: 233
|
There are several questions re national security and the military, and we expect all who participate in the mock selection sessions to discuss these issues during the selection process.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/13/2010
Posts: 14
|
What append to the topic per question content?
There used to be posts as individual topics on each question, but I can not find this content anymore. What happened to it?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/8/2010
Posts: 1
|
The fact is there are several questions I have not decided on the answer for yet, and those questions are actually designed to be an over simplification of compound and complex issues. I can not answer against when I am undecided at the present time, or within the context or conflictions within the question. There should be an undecided or an abstain included to better represent the true views of the individual even though it might skew the evaluations.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/26/2009
Posts: 284
Location: VA 3rd
|
I found I learned quite a bit more about the candidates when they explained their answers at the mock selections.
In fact, their view of the question and their reasoned answers cause me to re-evaluate and change a few of my own.
In other words, the questionnaire, along with the candidate explanations becomes the whole.
It does make the accountability of the candidate just a little harder to enforce...having the written questionnaire as part of the "contract".
I look at it this way......it a a far cry better than anything we have now! Improvements to the system will almost certainly be made. And that is why some of the questions have been removed or modified over time.
If you have not done so already, please attend a mock selection or two and submit suggestions for questions and improvements.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/10/2009
Posts: 3
|
i submitted the questionaire and the check mark didn't show, i'm wondering if i did something wrong, lol. anyway being a constitutionalist i feel alot of the questions were HUUUUUUUUUUm, are what i call questionable i viewed the questions i see and what i know of the u.s. constitution and the bill of rights and the declaration independence and the federalist papers and all laws made afterwards are unconstitutional, in my opinion if a law isn't in the constitution and our bill of rights then it needs to be removed period like the federal reserve, epa, nsa, cia, atf, school education, etc, etc. i feel like our government has overextended itself, i guess i'm an old crab, with all dues respect sgt rutledge(oathkeeper)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/22/2011
Posts: 1
|
I filled out the questionnaire but I have to agree some of the questions are pretty difficult to give a straight for or against answer and agree to be bound by the answer. I think some of them would require some discussion and views on opinions before I would say for sure that I would feel comfortable with making a firm answer.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/9/2011
Posts: 1
|
I am very disappointed in the Candidate Questionnaire. In #16 it says: "The challenge is for you to declare where you stand based on the information given." First of all, that statement is factually incorrect. What is, in fact, being asked in that Questionnaire, is for candidates to make commitments, based on limited information. Secondly, I don't believe it's anyone's place, certainly not Tim Cox, to tell Candidates on what basis they should make their decisions. My personal opinion is that we have far too many people acting on ill-informed commitments already, and we need candidates who are willing to say: "I don't know, let me study that issue and get back to you."
Also, some of the questions reveal an ignorance of how a Constitutional Republic is supposed to work. For instance, #25 asks "Will you vote for or against supporting states' rights over federal rights at least 90% of the time?". The Constitution is clear about what the Federal Government is and is not allowed to do, and that:
"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." So instead of forcing candidates to "complete" the Questionnaire by answering yes or no to a flawed question, we should be creating a platform for people to be stating their own understanding of an issue.
Another glaring example of a flawed question is: #35 "Will you vote for or against eliminating all government price and production controls, including abolishment of the minimum wage?" This question reveals an ignorance about the relationship between freedom, business and corporations. First of all, under the Constitution, any individual is free to conduct their own business in any way that doesn't harm another. If that person causes harm to another, the person harmed may take that person to court for damages. No other regulations are needed on that individual. However, if the state charters a corporation for the purpose of doing business, that corporation is not a citizen, and has no rights under the Constitution, and can therefore be regulated to protect the public welfare in any way that the People's public servants are directed to do by the People. Corporations which have amassed inordinate economic power have been known to force child labor for 12 hrs a day 7 days a week, and would do it again if they could. Since corporations are chartered by the States, it is the States that have the right and duty to regulate their own creations.
The last example I will give today is: #40 "Will you vote for or against increasing income taxes, excepting only during a period of declared war?" While a tax on income is Constitutional, most people don't understand that the term "income" means profit made on an investment. The 16th Amendment which allows a tax on income from whatever source means it allows a tax on profit made on an investment from whatever source. The U.S. Supreme Court has validated this several times, but the IRS has continued to use fraud and deception to force people to pay taxes for money received in exchange for their labor, which is not "income". We need candidates who either understand this, or who are willing to study the issue and learn the truth. In my opinion, we don't need any more candidates who make commitments to vote before understanding the issues. And we certainly don't need a political system that tries to push candidates into narrow positions. We have that already.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 4/30/2011
Posts: 46
|
Eli Dumitru wrote:I am very disappointed in the Candidate Questionnaire. I understand your concerns and what I will say to you is that the question is whether or not you will vote one way or another. If you don't have a clear understanding of the issue and are not willing to stand by what you say then it is possible that you will not be selected. The questions could be written in a form that would encompass all different options but then they would be so long no one would read them and this process would be useless. My advice to you would be to form your opinion, answer the questions, run for office, to try and make a difference. I mean, when is the last time you heard of a politician keeping his or her word? The questions only keep a persons feet in the fire.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 4/30/2011
Posts: 46
|
we need candidates who are willing to say: "I don't know, let me study that issue and get back to you."
GOOOH candidates should do exactly that. All the ones in congress now make decisions based on who gives them the most money.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 4/30/2011
Posts: 46
|
Eli Dumitru wrote:"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." The constitution delegated certain powers to the fed and all others to the states or the people. We declared our independence from England because the crown had complete power over the people. As long as we continue to give power to the fed by miss representing the constitution we will loose more and more of our rights. Our founders wanted limited government because the crown had unlimited power.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/12/2011
Posts: 2
|
LesGovern wrote: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).
I am complete agreement that the question should be philosophic and not specific. Alternatively, it should be based, as the Founders intended, in a personal basis to term limit yourself or have GOOOH field a challenger after a certain number of terms.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/28/2011
Posts: 1
|
Hello! I just logged in here and this information was very helpful for me to understand everything better! Thanks a lot for sharing!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/29/2012
Posts: 1
|
My hope is that more citizens become informed about our government and realize that a free society and limited government is what made this country great.
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
