It's YOUR Duty to run for office

[JoshLowry]

Why? You bear nary a resemblance to him(literally or rhetorically).

This website is private property. It's not public property.

Pretty simple. The whole bunchies charade is not an issue this country needs to face. You can use tags just fine. :p

If I did it, I'd run on the campaign slogan of "Constitutional Limits"

Every vote would be based on whether the bill is constitutional or not.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

This website is private property. It's not public property.

Pretty simple. The whole bunchies charade is not an issue this country needs to face. You can use tags just fine. :p

If I did it, I'd run on the campaign slogan of "Constitutional Limits"

Every vote would be based on whether the bill is constitutional or not.[/quote]

Natalie doesn't think it's a "charade". ;)

 

[Truth Warrior]

This website is private property. It's not public property.

Pretty simple. The whole bunchies charade is not an issue this country needs to face. You can use tags just fine. :p

If I did it, I'd run on the campaign slogan of "Constitutional Limits"

Every vote would be based on whether the bill is constitutional or not.[/quote]

[B]If you want Constitutional, it might be better to pick "John Adams", Ron's favorite FF.[/B] ;)

 

[Nathan Hale]

It is only your "duty" to run for Congress if you are capable of running as a credible candidate. If you're not up to that (i.e., if you don't have the experience, resources, and dedication) then don't run for Congress. Please. You'd be wasting donors and activists time and money, and we in the liberty movement have a limited quantity of both to go around.

So what IS our duty? To get involved by donating and working for credible candidates who choose to run for office.

 

[pappy]

It is only your "duty" to run for Congress if you are capable of running as a credible candidate. If you're not up to that (i.e., if you don't have the experience, resources, and dedication) then don't run for Congress. Please. You'd be wasting donors and activists time and money, and we in the liberty movement have a limited quantity of both to go around.

So what IS our duty? To get involved by donating and working for credible candidates who choose to run for office.

sorry. don't necessarily agree with that. the people with experience and resources to run are the ones who come back to bite freedom in the ass most of the time. i sometimes feel we woukd be better off picking an unknown maverick in every district and running them in a concerted effort.

I know, i know they would never win (sigh). it would be a waste. (sigh) but the people with the power and political cache will rarely if ever fight for freedom once in office. sad but true.

what experience is needed to be a congressman anyway. you just have to know what's right. how to vote, and be able to get others to do the same.

the only wa to get others to do the same is get some kind of critical mass in place. we'll never do that with ones who have the apparent needed traits. they have already been poisoned.

pappy

 

[David A. Gay Sr.]

I'll run, but I would like to see everyone run. I just hate to see jaded people with the right ideas refusing to run. I'll look at the link, I'll do what I can, but I really really feel like someone else would be better suited. However practice what you preach I suppose.

The point is, if I am considering running that is very significant. Because I am the type who would NEVER had run before. I think that is a good sign, the people who ought to be in office are often the ones who are most reluctant.

As it is now, only power hungry assholes get in office, and I am tired of it.

I ran in 2008. For U.S. Congress. Even got endorsed by Dr. Paul himself!

Then I got kicked off the General Election Ballot.

I ended up with 12 write in votes. 12 people who wanted a chance at freedom, I suppose.

Now where am I? Back here on Ron Paul Forums, trying to help orchestrate a collapse of the FED. (see link below)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=178115

 

[Nathan Hale]

sorry. don't necessarily agree with that. the people with experience and resources to run are the ones who come back to bite freedom in the ass most of the time.

I think you're mixing up cause and effect. Experience and resources may be common in bad guys, but I wouldn't go so far as to think it causes badness. More likely, the bad guys simply think strategically and put up candidates with experience and resources.

i sometimes feel we woukd be better off picking an unknown maverick in every district and running them in a concerted effort.

Yes, it's nice in think that we could recruit an army of novices in each district and run them for office, but our goal here is to win as many seats as we can. That requires doing more than throwing as many candidates as possible at the wall and seeing who sticks. Better to field two dozen quality candidates and put our scant resources behind them than field 100 joke candidates and divide our resources to the point that they are no longer effectively allocated.

I know, i know they would never win (sigh). it would be a waste. (sigh) but the people with the power and political cache will rarely if ever fight for freedom once in office. sad but true.

It's a good thing this isn't true, otherwise, it would be pointless to run any race, because the qualified candidates are all evil and the unqualified candidates are incapable of winning.

what experience is needed to be a congressman anyway. you just have to know what's right. how to vote, and be able to get others to do the same.

In theory, this is true, but not in practice. Voters determine the required experience. What experience is actually needed to fill the functions of a congressman is irrelevant, the experience our candidate needs to have is the experience that voters want our candidate to have.

I think you might be misjudging what I consider good experience - I don't necessarily mean experience in elected office. A businessman with a lot of experience could well fit the bill. Or a local community leader. What matters is that the person has the networks in place to make an effective run for the office.

 

[Aratus]

hi david! good luck on any future attempts!

 

[LedgerSko]

I want to run in 2012 in Arizona. We are going to pick up two House seats from the 2010 census. Republicans control the state legislature here. I'm sure the districts would be favorable to Republican candidates.

 

[nayjevin]

Choose Liberty Candidates to Support: http://tinyurl.com/dnz2nb

 

[BuddyRey]

The only thing preventing me from running for office is the fact that I would have to swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution, a document that I have serious moral and philosophical disagreements with. I value the integrity of my word, and the Constitution itself, too much to violate such an agreement.

 

[Nathan Hale]

The only thing preventing me from running for office is the fact that I would have to swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution, a document that I have serious moral and philosophical disagreements with. I value the integrity of my word, and the Constitution itself, too much to violate such an agreement.

So you would choose to allow enemies of liberty to gain ground as a result of this? Get your hands dirty, man. Please, if we all insisted on 100% of what we believe, 100% of the time, we would stand a 0% chance of ever having any effect in anything. For some libertarians, that used to be enough, but this movement isn't about living our lives according to our beliefs and hoping for the best, it is about having an effect on the system - producing change. So who cares if you're forced to take an oath to protect the Constitution when you'd rather have the Articles of Confederation (or whatever)? It's a small price to pay, a little lie, to prevent a much greater evil.