It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How about a new grass-roots movement, vote them ALL out!

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 



In my honest opinion, voting out every incumbent would certainly send a message but I feel it is the lazy way. It's lazy because instead of researching the new candidates and incumbents in your districts, we'd simply be making an indiscriminate, uneducated vote.


The research comes into play when you are looking into the replacements.


There actually are some members of our congress that stand up and say, 'Heck no!' There were congress who refused to sign the stimulus and bailouts because they were not given enough time to read and consider them. There are those who are opposing the new health care proposal. There are members of the house who adamantly opposed cap and trade. There are congressmen who are supporting the audit of the federal reserve. Etc.


Yes, many say Heck No. But is it because they care about the people or are they doing it because of political alliances? Hard to tell. I say start fresh.




posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
If we are going to be able to trust that our vote counts, then we need to do away with electronic voting machines.

Diebold, (spell?) the manufacturer, calling them corrupt would be a compliment.

Manipulation of votes has to be prevented before any transformation of Government will happen by us!



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by PRS395
 


Then we do it again, and again, and again, and again. . . .

until they finally get the message that this is the ONE country on the planet that is run by the people, for the people.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
I've had an idea for many years on how to run an effective government.

1. Sack the lot of them.

2. Ban all Party Politics.

3. Drop their income to the average wage plus travel and phone use as "Extras".

4. Advertise for each district to vote one honest person into government.

5. All those voted in can then work together... no one in power and the others in opposition.. but everyone there working for the benefit of the whole.

Those who choose the Political Lifestyle say if we pay peanuts we get monkeys. I think that is just blurb for "we are greedy, why else do you think we chose this lifestyle".

With only the average wage to live on you will know that not one person is there for the money and lifestyle. Instead you know that anyone who is honest and put themselves up for the vote will be doing so because the way to chage will be available to them instead of being harrased and jailed.. as happened here in Australia a few years back.

That's my theory. I would like to see how it might pan out in real life.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tayesin
4. Advertise for each district to vote one honest person into government.

The biggest problem there is that they themselves are allowed to enact legislation to set their wages and benefits.

We need that power; not them.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Tayesin
 


Sounds as good as any idea out there cuz. This current program we have is stinking like four - day - old - socks!



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra

Originally posted by Tayesin
4. Advertise for each district to vote one honest person into government.

The biggest problem there is that they themselves are allowed to enact legislation to set their wages and benefits.

We need that power; not them.


Good idea, as long as we are revamping the ballot, why not let the electorate decide salaries?

I mean, I work for someone, if I decided to give me a raise, I'd be laughed out of a job. Why should they be any different?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
While I agree that it would send a very clear message, I'm with Ashley D on this one we need think carefully there are still some good ones out there and we dare not lose them.
If you are on board with this though then heres one web site thats ahead of the game. www.kickthemallout.com...



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by nickoli
While I agree that it would send a very clear message, I'm with Ashley D on this one we need think carefully there are still some good ones out there and we dare not lose them.
If you are on board with this though then heres one web site thats ahead of the game. www.kickthemallout.com...


I love the site, so sad I wasn't the one to come up with it.

As for the good ones. Nope. They had their chance. We need people to shout, not whisper. We need people to stand up not stand by. We need people that have the courage to win, not the fear to lose.

They don't exist in DC any more.

We need to put the fear of the "people" back into our representatives.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by nickoli
 


Lots of respect on your opinion. I just feel they have all been aiding and abetting each other for too long.




posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 



Well said, jam. I can't think of one politician that has stood up above the rest.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD

In my honest opinion, voting out every incumbent would certainly send a message but I feel it is the lazy way. It's lazy because instead of researching the new candidates and incumbents in your districts, we'd simply be making an indiscriminate, uneducated vote.


Agreed ... not not only that, but doing so is an answer to the wrong question.
The problem is not the individuals, but their positions, and the system they enable.

And as I said in another thread, we can't vote our way out of this.
We can't even revolt our way out of it ...
As long as we participate, it will always be a "the king is dead long live the king" situation.

What's the solution?

Stop playing the game.
Stop buying what they are selling.
Stop participating.

How?

I've actually thought a little about this and even considered starting a grass root campaign for it.

In the next elections, either don't vote or generate a massive "blank vote/abstain" campaign. The latter is even better because it means that we're taking the time and effort to grind the system to a halt.

Imagine it if it could gain momentum ... Presidential/congressional/gubernatorial elections with so little participation that they lack all legitimacy. Election where the majority is descent for the system.

Unrealistic I know, but ultimately the only real solution.

Anything else is just an exercise in puppet selection whilst the puppeteers stay put.

To quote Wargames:

Joshua: A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 



In the next elections, either don't vote or generate a massive "blank vote/abstain" campaign. The latter is even better because it means that we're taking the time and effort to grind the system to a halt.


At this point your idea is just as good as any. What counts the most IMO is that we unite and do something.




posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Well I'm not super politically astute but I wouldnt want Ron Paul voted out and plus my representatives didnt support the bailout and they"re on board with hr 1207 so in good faith I'll have to fight for them to stay. Now things could change and I'm watching them real close because I'm kinda on board with this movement. I'm certainly angry with congress in general but I am just one man in a country of 300 million. Others may rightfully think differently and thats the beauty of living in a republic verses a democracy I just hope we can keep it. I also agree with the young lady at the town hall meeting the other day, they have awakened the sleeping giant, the wave is just coming over the reef and by the time it makes shore it will be massive.
The 2010 elections are shaping up to be a massive turnout I believe and the most informed and aware voters ever will be participating, should be really something to see.

[edit on 8/13/09 by nickoli]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 



Why not play the game, but change the rules? We are working under the asumption that they are in charge. But they are not!

We work the "system" already in place and let them know that the 'rules' have changed.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


The reason I can't do that either is due to that old quote, 'All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.'

So I don't believe abstaining would be a good course of action either. Someone said in a recent thread, there are people all over the world who die for the right to vote.

I understand a vote can feel meaningless and hopeless but I don't plan on bypassing that right. Even an inch of action is better than none.

reply to post by nickoli
 


That's exactly what I had in mind when I typed my original post but wasn't sure if he was running for office again (although his seat will be up) so I refrained but wanted to use him as an example.

As a Texan, Ron Paul will be on my ballot. I don't want to vote him out of office along with people like THIS, also a Texan, who I can't wait to vote out if she is a candidate.

Not sure who is running yet but I do believe we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   
"Do we really want to elect an unknown in the place of the members of congress who have proven themselves responsible and for the people?"

And who are these fictitious responsible members of congress that you speak of? Sorry, but I do not have a favorable opinion of any politician because Washington DC is the graveyard where all great values and principles go to die. Your vote means absolutely nothing. Just because you are given a "choice", it doesn't mean you have one.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD


Not sure who is running yet but I do believe we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.


But that is what they are doing now.

What is wrong is, we lapse into a complacent state. we say things like "I hope he/she isn't as bad as the other person." Or we end up with is "the devil you know. . . . "

It's the wrong analogy. We aren't throwing the baby out with the bathwater, we're giving a clean sweep.

If Ron Paul is the person that people want, then he will get there. But the past hasn't worked. Ron Paul hasn't worked.

Like I have said before, we need people to SHOUT, not whisper their intents.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Just because you are given a "choice", it doesn't mean you have one.


I still have to believe that we have a choice. If we truely don't, then why bother calling ourselves americans?



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by nickoli
 


Vote with your heart. But If they aren't really fighting for you, then get someone who will.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join