We need a better way to vet candiates running for office and I have an idea

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Aha! You had to qualify your answer because you know that everyone does in fact pay taxes, but you only care about one specific type of tax that people aren't paying so as to distort your message. No you are wrong. Not letting people who don't pay federal income taxes vote is SUPER discriminatory. Again, what happens to the poor in EVERY government that lets the rich run it while the poor cannot participate?

The fact someone may pay sales taxes to their local government or taxes on a gallon of gas is not the same as paying FEDERAL INCOME taxes. These are not remotely the same thing. Of course, you know this...

Taxes are taxes. I get zero say on where they are spent so regardless of how I pay them, they are all the same to me. Though regardless of how you stand on this, your idea was and still is unconstitutional. There is no valid reason to prohibit poor people from voting. I notice you continually fail to answer the question I've asked you twice now.

a reply to: UKTruth

I still have not seen a valid rebuttal from you on why this would be a bad idea. You being upset that you have to be exposed to more information and bickering is not a valid reason.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
How about no more political parties, and no mo politicians while we're at it?

1. No more political parties.

2. No more lobbyists.

3. Severely limit campaign donations.

4. TERM LIMITS!

The problem with 3 of these, however, is that at the current time, under our Constitution and supporting jurisprudence, they are impossible.

Yeah, so we keep the Bill of Rights, some other key parts, but rewrite the portions that enable corruption. Ron Paul even nodded to that general idea one time I have somewhere in my archives.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
How about no more political parties, and no mo politicians while we're at it?

1. No more political parties.

2. No more lobbyists.

3. Severely limit campaign donations.

4. TERM LIMITS!

The problem with 3 of these, however, is that at the current time, under our Constitution and supporting jurisprudence, they are impossible.

Yeah, so we keep the Bill of Rights, some other key parts, but rewrite the portions that enable corruption. Ron Paul even nodded to that general idea one time I have somewhere in my archives.

Sounds like a basis for a new series ...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Dude come on. You're worried about a POTUS trolling when every POTUS in our lifetime (well except Trump, for now...) have been corrupt war criminal mass murderers who have walked with ZERO accountability?

Bejeezus man, damn.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh I'm not smart enough for that just yet...

I am also in favor of a Constitutional Amendment establishing the rights of recall, repeal and referendum to citizens at the national level (at least).

There's no reason why We the People shouldn't be able to recall (or dismiss) any member of government serving at the national level, no reason we should not be able to establish our own laws when necessary, or dismiss those laws established by our representatives.

I can solve your problem. No lawyers will be allowed to run for any public office.

originally posted by: Fools
I can solve your problem. No lawyers will be allowed to run for any public office.

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2

I've got an idea that won't change a thing. Actually show up and vote during the primaries as opposed to waiting to see what's on the menu at election time.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I am also in favor of a Constitutional Amendment establishing the rights of recall, repeal and referendum to citizens at the national level (at least).

There's no reason why We the People shouldn't be able to recall (or dismiss) any member of government serving at the national level, no reason we should not be able to establish our own laws when necessary, or dismiss those laws established by our representatives.

This is a good idea too, but it would have to be carefully administered. The people shouldn't be able to kick a politician out just because they disagree with his/her partisan politics.

What about publically funded elections? Without big money in politics we could attempt to end their conflict of interest and gain representation that actually represents the people not corporate persons.

a reply to: Wateraven

I'm all for ending Citizen's United, but that is a discussion for another thread and one that has been discussed on ATS. I'm just fielding out this idea I had, though I'm open to additional changes being implemented with this one. It's not like it's a zero-sum situation where we can only pick one change. I want the most efficient system possible and many members have suggested additional good ideas throughout the thread.

It's a bad idea because it adds yet more bureaucracy and makes precisely no difference to who runs.

There are some good ideas on 'qualification' but a civics test is a pretty absurd one.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Aha! You had to qualify your answer because you know that everyone does in fact pay taxes, but you only care about one specific type of tax that people aren't paying so as to distort your message. No you are wrong. Not letting people who don't pay federal income taxes vote is SUPER discriminatory. Again, what happens to the poor in EVERY government that lets the rich run it while the poor cannot participate?

The fact someone may pay sales taxes to their local government or taxes on a gallon of gas is not the same as paying FEDERAL INCOME taxes. These are not remotely the same thing. Of course, you know this...

Taxes are taxes. I get zero say on where they are spent so regardless of how I pay them, they are all the same to me. Though regardless of how you stand on this, your idea was and still is unconstitutional. There is no valid reason to prohibit poor people from voting. I notice you continually fail to answer the question I've asked you twice now.

All taxes aren't the same. If you aren't contributing or paying federal taxes, then I think your opinion isn't as valid as someone who has skin in the game. It is easy to vote to increase taxes, no matter how benevolent you may think whatever policy is you want implemented when you aren't the one paying the taxes.

People generally don't stay poor. There was a time when I was "poor". You work hard and get yourself in a position to where you can vote. If anything, it may make people take voting more seriously since it is an earned right. Not all "poor" people are on the public dole.

You cannot have half the population who does not pay taxes voting to dig into the pockets of the other half. It will eventually fail. We see this in practice now. We all know that leftist politicians love to tell the non-paying half that the paying half isn't paying their fair share for votes.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I am also in favor of a Constitutional Amendment establishing the rights of recall, repeal and referendum to citizens at the national level (at least).

There's no reason why We the People shouldn't be able to recall (or dismiss) any member of government serving at the national level, no reason we should not be able to establish our own laws when necessary, or dismiss those laws established by our representatives.

This is a good idea too, but it would have to be carefully administered. The people shouldn't be able to kick a politician out just because they disagree with his/her partisan politics.

Absolutely. Some sort of distributed approach would be necessary, but just think if these bastages that get into office knew that they answered DIRECTLY to the People and that they weren't "safe" for the duration of their terms ... perhaps a lot of the BS non-productive partisan garbage we see today would be deceased.

Yes, pipe dreams I know, LOL.

iam fromgermany. i have a advise. why not develop some new votingsystem/device where a drugtest is connected to the voteing. so that you have to be sober to give away your vote and so on

originally posted by: Edumakated
All taxes aren't the same. If you aren't contributing or paying federal taxes, then I think your opinion isn't as valid as someone who has skin in the game. It is easy to vote to increase taxes, no matter how benevolent you may think whatever policy is you want implemented when you aren't the one paying the taxes.

That's fine you think that way. I know I'm not going to change that thinking so I'm not going to try. The Constitution disagrees though so your idea is moot and worthless to the discussion. It only serves as a point of what NOT to do.

People generally don't stay poor. There was a time when I was "poor". You work hard and get yourself in a position to where you can vote. If anything, it may make people take voting more seriously since it is an earned right. Not all "poor" people are on the public dole.

Doesn't matter. Your idea is still unconstitutional. Address that point first.

You cannot have half the population who does not pay taxes voting to dig into the pockets of the other half. It will eventually fail. We see this in practice now. We all know that leftist politicians love to tell the non-paying half that the paying half isn't paying their fair share for votes.

Sure you can. That's how our Constitution is setup. At least my idea in the OP is Constitutional.

PS: Also, thanks for making this into another petty left/right argument. ATS DEFINITELY needed more of those... /sarc

originally posted by: sedna9
iam fromgermany. i have a advise. why not develop some new votingsystem/device where a drugtest is connected to the voteing. so that you have to be sober to give away your vote and so on

IDK man. I think you may need to be half cut just to live under this government.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yeah. That sounds pretty damn intimidating. I do like it. You should spend some time fleshing it out so it can be administered fairly and start a thread on it. I had the idea I wrote about in my head brewing around for about a week now and only wrote the thread this morning when I settled on a decent way I feel it could be implemented.