Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: This is how we get morally weak people out of Federal Office:

Posted 11 years ago on March 4, 2013, 5:07 a.m. EST by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I was sitting here this morning thinking about our leadership and how we end up with folks of questionable morals in high office so often. I was thinking a way to address this would be a NEW LAW stating that if you sign up to run for Congress or President your tax records are no longer private and are made public by the IRS after you file for the ballot, all of them going back forever, if you want to lead the nation you should be an open book to the American People.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 11 years ago

good idea, And other verifiable aspects of their lives. Criminal record, google search (LOL) and credit check!! Drug test?

We are subjected to cr checks, for jobs, apts and such. They should be thoroughly checked out.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

I don't support drug tests for anybody, till we reform the drug laws.

The thing about the taxes is it involves money, have they been honest or not let people have a look and see, if you need to hide your finances then you don't need to be in Federal Office.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 11 years ago

I don't really support all these tests for the people by the govt. I find it very invasive. I was pleased to see the effort to drug test pols in fla when they added drug tests to public assistance recipients. (I don't think that effort succeeded in removing that invasive requirement)

I suppose I'm venting a bit but if the govt does not end the invasive "tests" on us (for college aid, food stamps etc) then pols SHOULD be subjected to the same.

Great post. Put their feet to the fire however we can.

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 11 years ago

I think we found some common ground here, factsy. For far too long our elected officials have held the people accountable through a plethora of laws, rules, and regulations, and they have used humiliating drug testing, fines, and imprisonment to enforce them

It is far overdue that we hold the people that represent us to the same degree of accountability

And considering where we are at, we should start by drug-testting them all


[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 11 years ago

good one, for sure!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

Thanks, this would work to move things in the right direction and if it ever got started, it might be hard to vote against so it could pass, but needs a sponsor in the House.

[-] 1 points by j1901 (1) 11 years ago

Also they should not be allowed to have any tatoos!!!

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

That could be a start. At the end of the day, the weaklings in government are a result of the people not rallying around each other and finding their own candidates and then supporting them.

Let the machine decide who the choices are, and then supporting one of the two, is a losing scenario.

"They" dont want strong leadership. "They" want puppets, people who are more enamored with "being in the club" then getting in there and raising holy hell. Its why we are so impressed with someone like EW- she is simply acting (and in many cases not enough) with the same passion that any of us would be.

While you and some others disagree with me on some of my more specific opinions in regards to roles in government, there is one thing I believe we all agree on- the power of the people is unstoppable.

A conversation after MTA in Tampa went in the direction of apathy, and I thought David Cobb made a great point. He stated that people arent necessarily apathetic, although many are, but there is also a lot of over all disconnect, because you can only vote so many times and get screwed over before you decide its not worth getting your hopes up for.

I would almost go as far as to say that a weak populace gets weak leaders, but that seems too harsh. If people start rallying around one another, and really start organizing and putting candidates together, things would change rapidly.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 11 years ago

I agree people should "rally around one another, and really start organizing and putting candidates together"

I also think we MUST change the rules the duopoly set up to keep 3rd party access limited.

Movetoamend, opendebates, election day holidays, nationalpopularvote.org, www.ballot-access.org

Also many groups are pushing reforms that will benefit 3rd party access.


The congressional progressive caucus also supports reforms that can reduce the duopoly of the parties.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

Destroying the Republican Party is the beginning of change, now or later whenever we get around to it, then we will have change.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

If it was that simple, "they" wouldnt be promoting it. Divide and conquer works like a charm.

Check this out, the copy on the back is very well written: http://www.occucards.com/republicrats/

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

If it were simple to kill the GOP it would be dead by now.

If you truly want to bring down the ladder of the two party system, knock out one of the legs and it will fall, applying pressure to the whole ladder just makes it stronger.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

Thats an interesting way of looking at it. We worked pretty hard in 07, and got a very large victory. So what happened?

Was it not big enough?

You need to realize that theres a proportional amount of that thought process on teh other side as well, just as determined. Thats how it goes.

What is your guess as to how many people in the House would it take, outside of the weaklings-yet very secretive and abusive- D/R - to raise holy hell and expose all this bullshit for what it is- total bullshit?

10-15 was what we were thinking. You?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

What part of kill the GOP do you not understand?

Most states are ran by the GOP even today how can you expect the change that will only come when the GOP is dead?

Look at 2000 when Bush and Nader aided by the Greens kept Gore from the White House, instead of supporting someone who would address climate change many Americans like Nader choose to toot their own horns, until there are Americans who really care about change none will happen.

OWS has for the most part joined the horn tooters and become a front for the Greens and the tens of millions of Americans that know how dangerous it is to feed the egos of Greens have started to think of OWS as more of a part of the problem splitting out people that would otherwise be involved in defeating Republicans and bringing us closer to real change.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

So the guy who shipped all the jobs to China and Mexico 3 years earlier was now going to stop the pollution. Thats reeeeeally interesting. But he did make a good movie, so Ill give him that.

You realize your thought process is exactly how "they" want the system to funciton right? Its why less than half the population votes, they are tired of the nonsense.

Shake the god damn system up already. My god, do something different, for crying out loud. This isnt difficult.

And the Republicans are doing everything they can to keep the libertarians from leaving too. Which is why someone like you should be slobbering at the door stop of Gary Johnson and Ron Paul- they are helping your dems and hurting the Reps, right?

Go all the way- campaign for GJ and libertarians in 14.

I mean, if you want to dedicate all your time for campaigning for Dems, then thats your choice. It just seems a bit redundant after 100 yrs.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 11 years ago

I think your campaigning for a particular candidate (G Johnson) is against the rules.

And Libertarians are not really FOR the 99%. They work against the concept of "we are in this together" and must help each other. Johnson & the Libertarians are more Ayn Randian "you're on your own", very selfish, cut govt (Jobs), and pro austerity.

That don't work. Ron Paul is a well know racist and tea partier, and I'm pretty sure he is not embraced on this site or among Occupy in general, certainly not by the progressive base of Occupy supporters.

I think you are way off base with that selfish libertarian crap..

And BTW, those that don't vote are less than half the population and are mostly low income (progressive leaning) citizens who have given up hope because of the oppression of the corp 1% oligarchs.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

Sorry, but your demographics are way off on those who dont vote, for a reason. Stop spewing your nonsense. And Im not a libertarian, but if your analogy is that Nader helped bush, then it reasons that Paul helped Obama.

Idiotic yes, but thats teh reasoning going on here.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 11 years ago

I think Bush II won because his Fla gov bro & fla campaign mgr (fla attorney gen) stole that state, and the conservative Scotus stopped the vote count.

But that was a loooong time ago.

Who doesn't vote?



This article shows almost 60% eligible voters voted. So you were wrong about "less than half vote" as well.


Mandatory voting for all eligible citizens.

[-] -2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

Those stats are all bullshit, you should know that by now.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 11 years ago

You offered NO stats. So yours are right and everyone else is wrong.? LOL

Where did you get your stats?. I'm happy to review a link. Have you searched? Or do you just guess.?

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

Some things are obvious. Have fun with your "stats".

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 11 years ago

Have fun with you delusional lies. "less than half vote"? Whaaaaaaat? We MUST increase turnout but not by outright lying!!

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

Bullshit Paul was not on any ballots and Obama got 51% he didn't need help; Bush on the other hand could not have won or stole the election without Nader's help two entirely different things.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

How many write ins did he get? Oh ya, they dont keep track of that. And how many debates did Jill make it into? Oh ya, they dont want real leaders up there? And how many attack commercials did you see with Rocky? Oh ya, real leaders dont sell out.

Again, if you think Nader was so destructive against that job shipping, no environmental regulations loving shmuck Gore, than perhaps you voted for the wrong person.

Perhaps instead of campaigning for Obama- Im assuming you did- you should go the Nader route and campaign for GJ? Right?

Iraw had more choices on their ballot than we did. Fuckin Iraq. What a shame.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

Nader put Bush in the White House, it's up to you what you think of Bush's Presidency, I think it sucked.

The Iraq War is over, it would not be if more people had voted for Jill thank God we won't be fooled again, if OWS wants to be part of the solution it will kick out the Greens and stop spreading their political lies and start defeating Republicans.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

And your silence on Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, Mali, Uganda, Guatemala, Somolia, Syria, Mexico, and Niger is speaking louder than words.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 11 years ago

"the guy who shipped all the jobs to China and Mexico 3 years earlier"?

Are you referring to Al Gore? How did he do that?

[-] -2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

Nevermind. He didnt. He rocks.


[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 11 years ago

Bush I began the conservative NAFTA negotiations and Clinton pushed & signed it after adding weak, symbolic labor rights/environmental requirements.

Gore was vice President and did not sign or do anything for that conservative anti labor deal.

And don't you forget it.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

I will support whoever has the best chance of beating a Republican, like all Americans who want real change.

[-] 0 points by peacehurricane (293) 11 years ago

Three is my guess. Outside pressure works. What I personally think is stop appealing to the absolute corruption and start making demands and tell them how it will be because they certainly have not got the capacity to figure it out without this after all they are smart enough to be where they are and that is not saying much. About all these elected people have going for them is the charisma for race to get elected. I have been in politics from age of 10 and our only misfortune at this time is my bottom teeth gone or I would tell it them one and all I can take them but with technology and phones lacking is support in all form and they know this so here I am WE...

[-] -1 points by conservatroll (187) 11 years ago

That's a start, but I think term limits are also needed. One 6 yr term and out. Too many pols don't do what's best for the country, but what's best for their reelection. And NOW, we are worrying if Hillary will run? Obama barely got sworn in and the media is talking about 2016. That's no way to run a country. With one term perhaps the pull of dirty money won't be as strong?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 11 years ago

Term limits take away our rights to re elect a good leader.

The purpose and goal of term limit proponents is simply to prevent a populist (like FDR) from staying in office too long.

limiting terms serves the corp 1% oligarchs who control our govt.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago


[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

Term limits turn the country entirely over to those just buying their time till they can go to work for the money people and stack up some real coin, I think term limits are stupid and the people should know how to vote and be informed so if you aren't working for them you're gone, if you are the money people can't touch you, term limits are just a way for the 1% to get the good leaders out.

[-] -2 points by conservatroll (187) 11 years ago

If they are "buying time" til they can make some real coin, then why are there so many career members of Congress? Why aren't Harry Reid or Mitch McConnel working for some corporations by now?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

Because we don't have term limits.

[-] -3 points by conservatroll (187) 11 years ago

No wonder I seldom attempt to have a meaningful debate on this forum. You just said that single termers would jockey for 'real coin'. Why do our present representatives eschew the 'real coin'? Is it because making DC a lifelong career is pretty darn lucrative? One term and out. Give more everyday people a chance to steer this country in the right directiom.

I;d rather see the tax returns after they gain office and after they leave.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

One term and out sells the seat to whoever will sell out to the most money quickest knowing they will soon depend on the private sector for their continued paycheck. You as a supporter of rich people rule would like that i understand your position perfectly.

If they stay for life people must like what they are doing or the people must not be informed about what they are doing the only term limits i support is the power of an informed public. If people like somebody like say Bill Clinton why shouldn't they be allowed to, Clinton would still be President if it weren't for term limits, the debt would be paid in full and the towers would still be standing.