It's YOUR Duty to run for office

[Stary Hickory]

If you believe in liberty and freedom and rule of law. You need to be either running for office or supporting those who do. I know I am new here, and that many here are doing exactly this. So sorry to preach to the choir, but i still believe that many here would not run for office.

I recently have been considering getting into politics, I am not a great speaker, nor do I think I have any chance of getting elected. But by god I will run, and if a better man beats me, and he believes in liberty and freedom, then I will support him in every way that I can.

So those of you who think you cannot run or can't win, run anyways. it's not about winning or losing it's about giving the public a chance at freedom, and maybe someone will see in you those qualities which you don't even see in yourself. We spend our time thinking about who will be the next Ron Paul, when there are literally millions of Ron Pauls throughout the country.

It's your duty to run, we need to see liberty candidates in every race, at every corner. Win or lose, I will support each and every one of you, and I will even run myself and probably get sorely defeated, but it doesn't matter. And let me tell you I KNOW there are tons of people better suited for office than me.

I just think now is the time for the average American to try and make a difference. It's not a negative to run for office, we need to stop thinking like that, it's the best thing you can do for your country. Especially in these times, Libertarians need to be on the move, and we need leaders wherever they may be. Win, Lose, Succeed, Fail I will support you.

[wizardwatson]

I've already seceded from the US. I'm currently President of the Republic of Watson. If you ever decide to secede, let me know so we can establish international relations and commerce.

[Stary Hickory]

I've already seceded from the US. I'm currently President of the Republic of Watson. If you ever decide to secede, let me know so we can establish international relations and commerce.

I guess this is a start, now if you were really serious you would run for local or bigger offices. being president of yourself is of course mandatory, however help the rest of your fellow Americans out and run for an office that will affect them too.

I understand your ideology, and I too give a rat's ass about unconstitutional laws.

[Truth Warrior]

I did. I was elected unanimously and for life as Emperor of my sovereign nation. :D

[heavenlyboy34]

I've already seceded from the US. I'm currently President of the Republic of Watson. If you ever decide to secede, let me know so we can establish international relations and commerce.

The Sovereign Republic of HB34 is willing to be on friendly terms with you. :D

[JoshLowry]

Stary, run in 2010.

If you are at least 25 years old you should run against the incumbent.

Check out the subforum at the bottom of Liberty Forest or go to www.RetakeCongress.com

[Stary Hickory]

Stary, run in 2010.

If you are at least 25 years old you should run against the incumbent.

Check out the subforum at the bottom of Liberty Forest or go to www.RetakeCongress.com

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.

[Kalifornia]

Ive actually considered it. First I have to provide for my family. Once my day to day survival is no longer in question, Ill float my candidacy for a local office among the nearby patriots and see who salutes.

[V3n]

I've been thinking about legally changing my name to None Of The Above. I'm thinking I could win a few elections just by people who don't like the other candidates.

I could make signs.. "Vote for None of the Above!"

Who knows, maybe one day I could be President Above!!

:D

[xd9fan]

no its my duty to protect my family FROM the damage congress creates.......thats is first

[Truth Warrior]

I've been thinking about legally changing my name to None Of The Above. I'm thinking I could win a few elections just by people who don't like the other candidates.

I could make signs.. "Vote for None of the Above!"

Who knows, maybe one day I could be President Above!!

:D

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/vote-for-nobody.jpg

[V3n]

LOL! Maybe Nobody can be my VP! :D

[LibertyEagle]

“I have many friends in the libertarian movement who look down on those of us who get involved in political activity,” he acknowledged, but “eventually, if you want to bring about changes … what you have to do is participate in political action.” -- Ron Paul
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/sep/22/00019/

[Truth Warrior]

LOL! Maybe Nobody can be my VP! :D "None of the Above" has been tried.

It was printed at the TOP of the ballot. :rolleyes: :mad:

[V3n]

"None of the Above" has been tried.

It was printed at the TOP of the ballot. :rolleyes: :mad:

dag! I was afraid of that!

[JoshLowry]

I've considered legally changing my name to Thomas Jefferson. :D

[Hamer]

I've considered legally changing my name to Thomas Jefferson. :D

Thomas Jefferson Johnson? Jeff Johnson the name you know!

[Truth Warrior]

dag! I was afraid of that! That just brings us back to NOBODY.<IMHO> ;) :D

[Truth Warrior]

I've considered legally changing my name to Thomas Jefferson. :D Radical!!! :D

[heavenlyboy34]

n/m

[JoshLowry]

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

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 [img] 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 [img] 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.

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 [img] 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.

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

[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.