Would you risk losing Ron Paul, if we could kick all bums out of Washington?

[SelfTaught]

Let's say there was a movement to kick out all congressmen and senators up for relection this year. Would you risk losing Ron Paul?

I'll let you know the reasons for asking this question after I hear a few answers.

[cpike]

Do we have a choice? Of course we have to risk him, every two years. That being said, I don't think we need to kick out every member of congress just 534 of them.

[Bruno]

Do we have a choice? Of course we have to risk him, every two years. That being said, I don't think we need to kick out every member of congress just 534 of them.

Sounds like a good number to me. :)

[Minlawc]

Maybe if the movement was also for eliminating the federal government in favor of a loose confederacy, or just getting rid of the 17th amendment and increasing the size of the House, then yeah. But if it's just getting rid of the current jackasses in favor of new jackasses then absolutely not.

[Bossobass]

NO!

I'm all for kicking "all BUMS out", if one acknowledges that Ron Paul is most certainly NOT a bum.

Bosso

[SelfTaught]

NO!

I'm all for kicking "all BUMS out", if one acknowledges that Ron Paul is most certainly NOT a bum.

Bosso

Understood, but the only reason I used bums in the title is because I couldn't fit congressmen and senators.

[micahnelson]

If Ron Paul knew that by resigning he would force everyone else to resign I dont think he would hesitate to resign.

An "unelect them" campaign doesnt have to be so broad though.

1) Ask people to set standards and goals.
2) Have people compare the voting record of their reps with the standards and goals.
3) If they feel the rep is in line with them, vote for them. If they are not, vote them out regardless of who the challenger may be.

[Brett]

I think if we picked 535 names randomly out of a phone book it'd be a better congress than what we have right now. Even if it meant no Ron Paul.

[charrob]

absolutely not. Ron Paul _is_ the movement. he's the spark that unites us all...

[Nate]

I think if we picked 535 names randomly out of a phone book it'd be a better congress than what we have right now. Even if it meant no Ron Paul.

+1

535 random citizens would do a much better job. So much better that Ron might not even need to be there. He looks like a hero/genius right now because he is surrounded by sellouts, globalists & economic simpletons.

535 average Americans would have 1000x more common sense. If we just took a sample group from ordinary Americans we would most likely have enough votes to end the wars, stop the health care takeover dead in it's tracks & the bailouts would never have happened.

So, yes I'd take the loss of Dr Paul if it meant kicking ALL these other traitors out of office.

[TonySutton]

Certainly, then he would have the time to dedicate himself to running for President on 2012 ;)

[someperson]

Certainly, then he would have the time to dedicate himself to running for President on 2012 ;)
:)

[The Patriot]

Let's say there was a movement to kick out all congressmen and senators up for relection this year. Would you risk losing Ron Paul?

I'll let you know the reasons for asking this question after I hear a few answers.

No, I wouldn't risk losing Paul, there are also some decent congressmen like McClintock on the right and Kucinich on the left. They would just fill Congress with different names, but the level of corruption and the political idoelogy would be the same. I sure as hell don't want Gerald Wall taking Paul's seat either.

[LibertarianfromGermany]

I think that depends on a lot of factors. The problem of the current "bums" is that they're easily interchangeable. So kicking them off doesn't really do much as long as they get other retards to fill their spots. We need to get a few more of our guys in their and change direction, but not necessarily by getting "them" out, but by getting "us" in.

[The Patriot]

I think that depends on a lot of factors. The problem of the current "bums" is that they're easily interchangeable. So kicking them off doesn't really do much as long as they get other retards to fill their spots. We need to get a few more of our guys in their and change direction, but not necessarily by getting "them" out, but by getting "us" in.
What party do you vote for over there in Germany?

[jkr]

no bum = no risk


no woman no cry

[SelfTaught]

+1

535 random citizens would do a much better job. So much better that Ron might not even need to be there. He looks like a hero/genius right now because he is surrounded by sellouts, globalists & economic simpletons.

535 average Americans would have 1000x more common sense. If we just took a sample group from ordinary Americans we would most likely have enough votes to end the wars, stop the health care takeover dead in it's tracks & the bailouts would never have happened.

So, yes I'd take the loss of Dr Paul if it meant kicking ALL these other traitors out of office.

I agree.

Even though it kinda violates the freedoms of some people, I would rather congressmen be selected like jury duty.

[jclay2]

+1

535 random citizens would do a much better job. So much better that Ron might not even need to be there. He looks like a hero/genius right now because he is surrounded by sellouts, globalists & economic simpletons.

535 average Americans would have 1000x more common sense. If we just took a sample group from ordinary Americans we would most likely have enough votes to end the wars, stop the health care takeover dead in it's tracks & the bailouts would never have happened.

So, yes I'd take the loss of Dr Paul if it meant kicking ALL these other traitors out of office.

You underestimate the ability of power and money to corrupt.

[Athan]

I wouldn't risk him. He is to much of a national treasure at this point. The bums will just be back in 2 years anyway.

[LibertarianfromGermany]

What party do you vote for over there in Germany?

None. There's to my knowledge not one party I could vote for without emphasizing the "lesser evil" mentality. Every party consists of a hopeless bunch of socialists, it's quite depressing.

[Icymudpuppy]

There's an idea. Lets make serving the government like serving Jury Duty. You get $15/day, and you'd better have a good reason for skipping out.

[DjLoTi]

We'll kick Ron Paul out of congress cuz he's going to be president in 2012.

[Nate]

We'll kick Ron Paul out of congress cuz he's going to be president in 2012.

+1

[slothman]

Alot of you seem to be answering 'no'.
Doesn't that mean that Ron can overcompensate(sp) for the rest on Congress?
The voting records don't agree.

Of course I still like my 1 term limit in Congress idea.
Or at least no more that 2 or 3 terms.
Without needing to be reelected no money can be bribed, er lobbied, for a new election since that won't happen.
There is normal bribing but criminal acts can take care of that.

[Rocket80]

If I had the choice between every incumbent losing, or every incumbent winning.... I would choose for every incumbent to lose (inc. Ron Paul) because it would just be awesome. RP would be no less popular, imo, if he were to retire from Congress tomorrow.