How do I find a candidate to vote for who isn't corrupt?

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher

This may not be humanly possible. I know of no one individual who knows the number of all the mandatory expectations (laws) that American citizens must conform to in order to be law abiding citizens, let alone what they all are word for word, and what they acually mean when held in context with eachother simultaneously.

Legislation should not be confused with law. Legislation is not law but merely evidence of law. Were it actually law, the courts would not have the power to strike it down as unconstitutional. Nor would juries have the power to nullify the law and protect the individual unjustly charged with a crime. Legislation is not law. Law is the collective body of rights protected. If it is protecting the rights of an individual, or individuals, then it is law. If it is abrogating and/or derogating the rights of an individual, or individuals, then it is most assuredly not law, and simply just legislation.

Law is the direct reflection of peoples' fears, hates, and loves.

Law is the reflection of the physical universe in which we live. Law describes the restrictions we face in that physical world. The law of gravity is not described by its positive nature, but by its negative nature and how it affects and limits the motion of other bodies. The law of murder is not described by any positive nature, but by its negative nature and how it affects the freedom of those who murder.

If people are afraid of losing something, they make laws to preserve it.

Laws are not made, they are discovered.

If people hate something, they make laws to abolish it.

I hate murder, but no amount of legislation will abolish it. All the law can do is act in a negative sense and hope to balance the injustice made by the act of murder by limiting the freedom of the murderer. Laws are about consequences, and the law of gravity did not abolish flight, it mandated that flight could only take place upon certain conditions.

If people love something, they make laws to protect it.

Outside of rights, laws do not protect, they describe the consequences of ignoring the law. I love my life, and it is up to me to protect it, the law can only offer me justice failing any protection, which is to say, that if I am murdered, and the murder apprehended and convicted, then justice has been served, even if I am dead. The law did not protect me, it spoke to balancing justice.

If law makers love making laws, and getting paid for it, they will make laws that preserve the existence of their profession, they will make laws that abolish things that may threaten their profession, and they will make laws to protect their ability to make laws.

Technically you are speaking of legislatures, and legislatures, or legislators, do not make laws, they legislate. If they have discovered a law that merits legislation, and they pass this legislation as law, they have done a good job. If they presume they can invent law, they have not done their job. Do you honestly believe Congress can save us from incoming asteroids and comets simply by making a law prohibiting incoming asteroids and comets?

Protecting individual rights? It is illegal for homeless people to sleep outside. This is a law in many cities, in many states.

If that homeless person is sleeping outside in public, as opposed to on someones private property, it is not illegal, despite any legislation, or ordinance that would declare it so. If homeless people are being unjustly harassed and even imprisoned because of their circumstances, this is happening because we the people have acquiesced and allowed tyranny to rule. Indeed, perhaps some of us even advocate harassing homeless and incarcerating them simply for sleeping outside, but I assure you this is not law, this is tyranny.

I wish I could concede that the laws actually support the above statement, but I do not know if this is true.

You are ambivalent to what the law is because of your own personal experience in the military and as a fireman. On the one hand you hold true to ideals that agree with freedom, and on the other hand, you have spent a life time as an employee of government. Your very livelihood has been dependent upon government, and for this reason you hold a greater respect for that government than I do. This is understandable. However, trust your ideals John Paul, not your intellectual conditioning, but your genuine ideals, and surely you will come to know that regardless of your sense of loyalty to government, that loyalty cannot mean a thing if it isn't in harmony with your loyalty to the people and to their unalienable rights.

reply to post by Janky Red

I swear I think the DEMAND and Enthusiasm for such a positive systemic development would be very hard to quell by the media or the two party system. I am sure revolutionizing the status quo is very possible in this day in age, technology and the massive discontent is just waiting to be "exploited", it seems like the time is now.

If not now then when, and if not us then who?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Janky Red

 

I swear I think the DEMAND and Enthusiasm for such a positive systemic development would be very hard to quell by the media or the two party system. I am sure revolutionizing the status quo is very possible in this day in age, technology and the massive discontent is just waiting to be "exploited", it seems like the time is now.

If not now then when, and if not us then who?

It is a great big world - I figure the whole lot of us are waiting for the other guy to come along and show us the way... I figure it is like those situations where spectators watch someone slowly die; all of them thinking [someone must have called the ambulance by now].

Practically speaking I would love to do this (not sure what this is yet) but it sure would be rewarding to help facilitate some real competition to this static party system. The concept in and of it self is a winner -



"END THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM!!! DONATE HERE, DONATE HEARTILY!"

I would throw my kidney in there

I do want more out of life

reply to post by Janky Red


Certainly by voting your conscience, and if that conscience dictates firing incumbents, and refusing to vote for any politician affiliated with the two party system, this is but one small step you and I can take in the direction towards just government. However, as I have stated, and continue to assert, voting is the very least we can do in keeping government in check.

We must do more. Doing more means placing ourselves at risk. This is the call to adventure all hero's must face. Mythologically speaking, all hero's are reluctant hero's who do not respond to the call to adventure until after some set of circumstances compels them to respond to the call. Once they respond, they have crossed the threshold, and are either victorious, or not when facing the trials ahead. Either way, those who cross the threshold and face the trials, are genuine hero's.

Jesus is perhaps the ultimate hero, not just in that he so squarely fits within the mythological monomyth, but because his legend has inspired so many others to answer to that call of adventure. Yet, I suspect that Jesus was not expecting such an untimely physical demise and painful and horrible death. His exclamation; "Oh God, Oh God, why hath thou forsaken me?" is partly why I suspect Jesus was expecting a different outcome than the one he got. Regardless of that outcome, his story is the story of a hero who reluctantly, and due to circumstances, responded to the call to adventure, crossed the threshold and faced the trials ahead. He challenged the status quo, and while the status quo did all they could to destroy him, his heroism has outlived their villainy.

Some would argue that the villains have used the myth of Jesus towards their own ends, and indeed, such an argument has validity, but this has not stopped those capable of getting his message from applying that message towards their own life.

Make no mistakes about my analogy, I am not here to convert any soul to Christianity, I am here to advocate heroism. If you have not all ready responded to the call of adventure, it is only because you are a reluctant hero, as all hero's are. Once circumstances compel you to respond to that call, I have no doubt you will.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Legislation should not be confused with law. Legislation is not law but merely evidence of law.

I appreciate you trying to explain this to me. I will read through and absorb your post more fully when I am not as tired. I admit my ignorance of the difference between legislation & law.

Definition of LEGISLATION
1: the action of legislating; specifically : the exercise of the power and function of making rules (as laws) that have the force of authority by virtue of their promulgation by an official organ of a state or other organization
Merriam-Webster's Definition of Legislation

Compaired to Law:

Definition of LAW
1a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : common law b (1) : the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law (2) : the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs; also : litigation (3) : the agency of or an agent of established law c : a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe d : something compatible with or enforceable by established law
e : control, authority
Merriam-Webster's Definition of Law (more)

Law describes the restrictions we face in that physical world.

Legislation is not a restriction we face in our world?

Posted by Esoteric Teacher:
If people hate something, they make laws to abolish it.

Posted By Jean Paul Zodeaux
I hate murder, but no amount of legislation will abolish it.

(bold by me)

I thought we were talking about laws, not legislation.

Maybe I do not understand, I'll read your post again at a later time when I'm in a better frame of mind

Thanks JPZ,
ET

Become one yourself and when you have become one, watch yourself in the mirror everyday and look if you would believe the image in the mirror when you say aloud: "I'm honestly working for the public, no personal intentions." If you can, you have found him/her.

How do you find a candidate to vote for who isn't corrupt? You find a person who is such an insane megalomaniac that his own sense of moral authority is far more important to him than anything he could be "corrupted" with. In other words, vote for Ralph Nader, and you never have to worry about voting for a corporate shill, or voting for a madman that has a chance of winning. Really, do it, it feels great. I've done it for nearly ten years running and will pull the lever for him again, if given the chance. Everyone else is capable of being manipulated through either greed or fear. You need a madman.

reply to post by FortAnthem

How do I find a candidate to vote for who isn't corrupt?

Pack your bags, you're going on a trip, all you need is to learn a few simple lyrics

Anyone with a D by there names is corrupt i come to find out. they are power greedy and have held the mojority since 06 in the house and guess what thats when the SHTF and the market started its spiral.

Find Ron Paul

I don't think you can.
People go into politics for two reasons; Power & Greed.
I haven't met a politician yet that I would trust with my wallet.

I would be more inclined to trust a used car salesman than a politician.

The prime objective of any politician is to get re-elected. There are really only out to serve themselves in my opinion.

They get corrupt once they get complacent and become lifetime politicians.
The key is to throw the incumbents out and get new blood in there, regardless of political affiliation.

Now I must ask, what could be so wrong with a little Tea?

TWO WORDS FOR YOU!!!!

RON.............................PAUL......................


The only politician that ever talks about the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Civil Liberties... He is the MAN for you!!!! Hands down

Theo only way I could be absolutely sure would be to write my own name on the ballot and even then you never know what the opposition might dig up later to make me regret my choice

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
the act of voting is the absolute very least one can do when it comes to keeping government in check. It is not the pinnacle of checking government, it is the minimal act one can do.

...the only time your vote MIGHT have an impact is at the local level...

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
It was not repealed because politicians had a change of heart, nor did they have any epiphany that made them realize that the 18th Amendment was folly. What they faced was an undermined legislature and executive branch, and even judicial, because the people just simply refused to acknowledge governmental authority regarding this prohibition.

...no, it was repealed because the rich and powerful realized how much revenue they were losing...

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
while drinking alcohol had long been America's pastime,

...i thought it was baseball... did you leave out something, like "if you're irish american of the bent arm clan"?...

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
taking other types of drugs were not, and for most, accepting the demonization and criminalization of drug users was easier to swallow than of drinkers of alcohol.

...i couldnt possibly count how many tea-totallers i've run across that could never get enough of demonizing those who "drink" (they usually say that word whispered, lol) - but - if they dont get their regularly scheduled government approved pill - whoa! - worse than joan crawford on meth...

...back in the 60s, it was made relatively easy to demonize illegal drug users - because - so much of the population was already hooked on legal drugs and they believed the government approved propaganda that if you get your pills from a doctor, its not drugs - its medicine - which was just another huge lie among countless lies our government has promoted...

...they promoted racism among the middle and lower class whites the exact same way - made them feel above those they were really no different from...

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Governments exist to serve the people, not the other way around!

...so they say but i cant think of one country (past or present) where thats true - not that i'm scholar (quite the contrary) - but - really, when has that ever been a reality?...

reply to post by FortAnthem


Nigh on impossible unfortunately.

Corruption by ethics.

Corruption by power.

Corruption by money.

Corruption by association.

Corruption by political party.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2e26fe0c2a38.gif[/atsimg]

Far, far too many people have no ethics, morals, or beliefs.

Yet they fool people day in and day out.

To find someone who is not corrupt you cannot look to Washington D.C. for any example.

Not even Ron Paul as so many suggest.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8e270929984a.jpg[/atsimg]

Sorry, no one gets my vote, but then again I look to intent.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/de4a7bac9487.jpg[/atsimg]

I was told by a friend to look for someone who does not want the job because they know exactly what it entails.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/60d274b1637a.jpg[/atsimg]

As well look to the lobbyist groups, special interest groups, and Secret Societes to try to get their grubby hands all over the potentials, by buying them, bribing them, or blackmailing them, unfortunately not many can withstand this onslaught of nonsense without crumbling, succumbing, or giving in wholly and not only selling out but being bought cheap.

Political Currency : Secret Societies, Those They Blackmail, and the Corrupt Currency...

The problem stems not just from the people being elected but zero examples to follow as a template of how to be.

I guess all those stories about good candidates were just unfounded rumors after all.


I'll just have to stick with my regular go-to guy.