All Opinions Wanted: is #ProtestTheVote for next POTUS a good idea?

1. 76

   Misfit Chickposted 6 years ago

   
   
   #ProtestTheVote – A protest by the American public against the way the two main political parties have continued to deflect their responsibilities toward serving We the People while attempting to manipulate, blame & condemn instead of researching, discussing & solving America’s issues.
   
   VOTE anyway, even if you don’t want to vote for anyone – DON’T JUST STAY HOME. This protest will only really work if we come out in huge numbers bigger than we ever have before. Let’s shoot for that impossible-to-reach 100% attendance mark!
   
   Two ways to protest:
   
   1) Ideally, find a 3rd party nominee in your state that you can stand. Get as interested in them as you would any popular GOP or Dem nominee. Don’t worry about them not having your exact same policy ideals or perfect record, etc. Those things are always more in flux even within GOP & Dem parties. The purpose is to NOT LET either major political party in as potus next time – or give them the scare of their lives trying.
   
   And don’t worry if a 3rd party gets in (big parties still have their reps in congress) – that would actually do a double-whammy on current agendas. Trump is basically a 3rd party candidate who just happened to get in under the GOP banner. If we’ve managed to survive his term of chaos, we can survive another one. It has been a normal thing for our society – the American people are really cool about stepping in & dealing with hot spots when and where needed until they can be dealt with by us as a collective. We can continue to deal.
   
   2) Fill in your potus vote with #ProtestTheVote – Neither main political party. No, it isn’t a person – but if they add up to any significant number, they will start to count. It is a way to protest without ‘not voting’.
   There seems to be no other way for us as a country to get our point across to Democrats and Republicans, both. Even if we fail – I think it could be a success if we manage to shake up both sides.
   
   This is a preliminary-research question for people's opinions; and I’m looking for real input from all sides – cuz I’m well-aware that there are more than just two. We all seem to be pretty frustrated with our politicians and/or political processes. What do you think? Got any good ideas that might be better or make #ProtestTheVote work better?

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I don't really see the POTUS as the primary problem, just the most visible and controversial.  In truth it is the politicians in congress, and until we decide that having a powerful politician on our side, that can bring in lots of federal money to our state or community, is not in the best interests of the entire country not much will change.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Misfit Chickposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         "I don't really see the POTUS as the primary problem, just the most visible and controversial"
         
         Which is exactly the point of this protest.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I guess.  That's the point of protests, after all - be visible without producing anything smacking of reason or truth. 
            
            Probably why I don't have much use for most protesters or protests, with an attitude like that, right?

            replyreport
   2. 55

      The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      In the first place, We The People have the power and reason to impeach every congressman for the "high Crime" of PERJURY because they took an oath to protect the constitution and were not elected according to it. [see https://hubpages.com/politics/The-U-S-C … ons-Spirit as I have interpreted the Constitution.]
      
      Secondly, We The People are to elect electors who are supposed to find for us people they think will follow the constitution for all congressman [Art. 1.2.2 & 1.3.3]  and both president and vice {Amen. 24] to represent our various states which eliminates parties. In the entire constitution there is nothing to allow for parties.
      
      Therefore I suggest we the people begin the process of impeaching everyone in government who is not elected constitutionally, that is the way to vote.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         While you may interpret the constitution that way, no one else does.  "The people", for instance, may not impeach anyone: the House must bring charges and the Senate acts as judge, with "the people" out in the cold.
         
         Nor is there any reference to electors finding or electing congressmen/women; those "the people" have chose are quite legally elected.  Electors do elect the President and vice, but again the method used today is quite legal according to everyone but you.
         
         Therefore I suggest you re-align your "interpretation" to that of "we the people".

         replyreport
         1. 55

            The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            With the constitution not providing the steps for eliminating the two primary "checks an balances" of the government for not fulfilling their duties, including being elected constitutionally, Who else has the responsibility? Read Amendment 10 "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  We the People as the constitution did not delegate impeaching to the government nor does it prohibit to the states, therefore, since the states is following the federal government's corruption We The People have the responsibility todo it.
            
            In all of your getting, get understanding has been written and I suggest in reading the constitution get understanding especially because everyone in all government leadership positions since 9/11 have committed TREASON against the United States by not punishing George W. Bush and company per Article 3.3.
            
            I suggest We The People read with understanding the constitution rather than allowing government implants [like you appear to be] for down playing the truth.

            replyreport
   3. 0

      Daniel Gottlobposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      No one is going to follow you if you don't know where you are going. Making a movement to vote for anyone other than the Democratic or Republican Party is going to fail to mobilize the independent masses in general and with out coherence it will not steer anyone anywhere.
      
      It is inevitably an uphill battle for a third party to get taken seriously and garner a base. However, with the growing polarization and independent bases and the cheapness of news and media, conditions are as good as they will be to capitalize.
      
      There are a lot of options out there and you are a year out from the next big congress election cycle. Figure out who is going the direction you want to go and promote them. If no one has an option you like then work with others to make your own.
      
      Give people something to fight for, instead of something to attack. Your victories are more useful that way and your losses are still the same.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Misfit Chickposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Well said. I know it would be a hard crawl; and I know a 3rd party is unlikely to 'win' - even with trying to be content with 'just sending a message'; because that would probably be ignored shortly after a winner is declared, as well.
         
         I'm just trying to think of something we haven't tried before. Neither party seems to 'get' that most of us seriously hate their partisan tug-of-war.
         
         I agree, I think this next election cycle coming up will tell us a lot. Someone should start floating to the top... Plus, depending on the results of the coming 2018 elections, there may actually be no need for this protest by the time the next potus election arrives. We'll see.

         replyreport
      2. 55

         The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         That is why I suggest we elect all government officials as the constitution demands. For Representatives Article 1.2.2, Senators Article 1.3.3 & Amendment 17 and Presidents and Vices per Article 2.1 and Amendments 12 & 24, which demands "We The People" choose and elect "Electors" who will go to other states in search of Representatives, Senators and either Presidents or Vices. We The People question them concerning their knowledge of the constitution and if they are willing to be governed by the will "We The People" vote for them to abide by concerning everything they do except for the president which will do according to how We The People direct congress to vote. We will question them concerning their unwillingness to keep secrets from The People and of their own lives prior to being selected as a possible candidate to ensure they are flawlessly without selfishness and greed.
         
         If we do that then we will have a government "Of the people, By the people and For the people" instead of being "Of greedy orporations, By corporations and For corporations" as almost every law passed since I began observing politics in 1960 have been.

         replyreport
         1. 88

            GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Hi there The0NatureBoy,
            
            I was trying to follow the logic of your comment, but after looking at your referenced Articles and Amendments, I couldn't find your explanatory quote;
            
            ""We The People" choose and elect "Electors" who will go to other states in search of Representatives, Senators and either Presidents or Vices. We The People question them concerning their knowledge of the constitution and if they are willing to be governed by the will "We The People" vote for them to abide by concerning everything they do except for the president which will do according to how We The People direct congress to vote. We will question them concerning their unwillingness to keep secrets from The People and of their own lives prior to being selected as a possible candidate to ensure they are flawlessly without selfishness and greed. "
            
            If you could point me to where your search found these Constitutional instructions I would like to check them out for myself, because my readings don't seem to agree with yours.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 55

               The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               GA,
               Why would we elect "Electors" if the people we elect were from the state we live in? [Read Art. 1.2.2, 1.3.3 & Amendment 12 and see what the responsibility of the electors when we reason with what is written.] The constitution requires reasoning, not only pronouncing the words without knowing what they are saying.
               
               I realize the "school" - getting the masses to follow a leader even to their own death - system is far from teaching people to make decisions based on word definitions individually and in the context of the writing but I didn't realize it had such a mass so schooled. Why do schools each us how to be researchers if we can't comprehend the written word?
               
               Elijah NatureBoy [ENB]

               replyreport
               1. 88

                  GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  I hope you will understand why I am including the excerpts for the sections you mentioned Elijah. I don't see the logic of your interpretation, (as you noted your quote in my first response to be), and think seeing the text in the discussion would be helpful.
                  
                  Art. !.2.2
                  "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."
                  
                  That just states the age, citizenship, and residency requirements for a Representative candidate.
                  
                  Art. 1.3.3
                  "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen."
                  
                  Again, this clause just states the age, citizenship, and residency requirements for a Senate candidate.
                  
                  The 12th Amendment - too much text cut & paste, so here is the summary:
                  "The Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution outlines the necessary procedure for electing the President and Vice President. The Twelfth Amendment replaced Article II, Section 1, and Clause 3, which offered the original procedure by which the Electoral College was created and how it subsequently functioned. "
                  
                  The only possible link to your original explanation, that I can see, is the use of the word "Electors." But, even without scholarly study it is easy to comprehend these are two different uses of the word. "Electors in your Article references referred to the voting citizens of a state, the "Electors" mention in the 12th Amendment referred to the presidential Electors of the Electoral College.
                  
                  I just don't see anything that relates to your explanation about going to different states, questioning the them, or requiring their pledge to do what Congress tells them to do because Congress is doing what you told them to do, etc...
                  
                  Of course those things you attribute to being implied in the text of the Constitution are what happens on the campaign trail, but they are in no way mandated or implied in the Constitutional references you supplied. I just don't see how you got there. It is possible a valid candidate could get elected without ever having to campaign - so your "campaign-type" mandates could legitimately be completely non-relative.
                  
                  It seems that what you describe as a need; "  The constitution requires reasoning, not only pronouncing the words without knowing what they are saying. " - reasoning, to really understand what the Constitution says is just your very subjective interpretations. I can't find any validity for your perspective, and I don't recall ever coming across a similar interpretation.
                  
                  Considering the apparent loneliness of your perspective, I wouldn't be so quick to berate the research abilities and understandings of the "masses"
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 55

                     The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     Forgive my lateness in replying, GA, but circumstances didn't allow me to respond until now.
                     
                     If someone doesn't fit the requirement for being a Representative or Senator they are already in violation of the constitution which is also "Perjury" which is a High Crime and impeachable offense. Also, having "Electors" to choose them for - unsaid the people to chose which ones they want to vote on - does not allow for parties for either Representatives or Senators, thus, there is no Constitutional allowance for parties anywhere in the document.
                     
                     My writings suggest as the constitution does, We The People choose several people We vote into the position of Electors for choosing congressional and presidential candidates which We The People of the individual states select several of and then vote to be Representatives and Senators of our individual state. Because there are no parties there is not a congressional primary election, they are only for the presidential candidates which allows for 51 candidates for November's Election.
                     
                     Please show me where the constitution provides for an "Electoral College", Amendment 12 is ambiguous in presenting how Presidents are elected when we take into consideration Article 2.1 and all amendments 12 and 24. Together they say We The People are to vote for a primary presidential and vice candidate to represent our individual states which our votes are certified to the president of congress by the Electors for recounting the winners and losers votes.  It is for that reason I provided a means for We The People to vote during both Primary and General ELECTIONS. Yet, nowhere does it say there is an "Electoral College" for presidents, that is a made up something to confuse everyone who doesn't read the constitution [one reason why "Civics" is no longer taught in school, keep th people believing in the government blindly.
                     
                     Congressman [man as our specie] of either section are not from the state who elect them so how are the People of the state who are to choose them going to know who they are choosing and then supposed to vote for without them being brought back to the people for their interview and questioning them concerning the Constitution and other pertinent matters including criminal records. According to Amendment 12 the same is true for presidents and vices. How are there people supposed to know them, there was no National Television during that day - or have you forgotten - nor until the early 1900s so don't you see that when reading of the document? It can't be read baed on today's standard of living first - as it appears you are doing - but according to the conditions of the times.
                     
                     GA, my interpretation is objective based first on the conditions during the time of the writing of the document and then bringing it forwards to the present time. The general interpretation is not allowing for the conditions of the time of the writing which is where the Error is.
                     
                     Elijah NatureBoy

                     replyreport
                     1. 88

                        GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        Elijah, we seem to disagree to such an extant that we are both pissing in the wind. I can find no validation for your contentions - other than your own declarations of correct interpretations, and, you denounce the clear text of the Constitution as not meaning what it clearly says.
                        
                        Your confusion over the election of Senators, and, the Electoral College - as clearly explained in Article 2, section 1, clause 2 and 3, (as your preferred form of designation), leave no path forward for either of us.
                        
                        I think you are provably mistaken, and you think I am naively misinterpreting... and that is where we must leave things.
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
                        1. 55

                           The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                           Article 2.1.3 is now Amendment 12 and Amendment 24 provided for We the People to vote in both the primary and general elections for presidents and vices, that eliminated - though not stated - the Electors from doing the electing and gave it to the people. Intern, logically speaking that made the electors to be seekers of people for the people to vote for.
                           
                           But we can agree to disagree.

                           replyreport
                     2. 88

                        MizBejabbersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        Elijah, sorry, but there are a couple of fallacies in your "legal" arguments. First, "Also, having "Electors" to choose them for - unsaid the people to chose which ones they want to vote on - does not allow for parties for either Representatives or Senators, thus, there is no Constitutional allowance for parties anywhere in the document."
                        My Code Reviser, a very wise lawyer, many years ago told me that if there is no provision in the law to make something illegal, then it is assumed to be legal to do it. If you don't like it when someone does it, then you must work to get it legislated illegal. That there is no Constitutional allowance for parties does not make parties illegal, but actually makes them legal for that lack.
                        Now in an earlier statement you made a statement about how 'We the People' will direct Congress to vote." When Bill was president, I kept seeing old fogeys grumbling about "he won't do what the people want him to do". What they meant was "he won't do what a small minority want him to do". So how do you get a concensus of the people to "direct the president"? It is not the people's job to direct the president.  The president can be and should be influenced by the direction of the political wind in certain situations, but he is not in a position to allow "the people" to direct his actions because he knows military and security secrets that the people will never know.

                        replyreport
                        1. 55

                           The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                           MizBejabber,
                           The first of the 6 provisions the Constitution intended to accomplish "in Order to form a more perfect Union" outlawed it because there is no perfecting the union with divisions of any kind. Therefore, the law was there in wording the intent of the constitution is to "perfect the union".
                           
                           I see your point concerning Bill, however, now that the internet has been available to the people for a while - as I believe was intended in writing the constitution although the means of doing it wasn't established - We The People   have the means of telling congress and the president what to do. We can force Congress to allow The People to vote telling them how to vote on every bill before sending it to the president and, unless the president can show how it is unconstitutional, he is obligated to pass it because it is the will of the people. When looking at the whole picture rather than "micro sections" of it we are able to see causes and effects which provides us with the solution.
                           
                           According to the Constitution (Article 6.3) all Government officials our trustees of the people and there should be no secrets from the people except "war tactics" for wars which were not "Acts of Treason" like European Wars (WW) 1 & 2, Vietnam and nows the middle eastern wars are. Everything else about the government is to be open to the people at all times.

                           replyreport
2. 59

   Live to Learnposted 6 years ago

   I honestly don't see the upside of the #ProtesttheVote on the presidential ticket. Someone will still get elected. The only thing that changes is a bunch of people put in an unelectable choice. I think our government already knows we are disgusted with business as usual. The fact that they aren't doing anything about it already tells me they won't do anything about it with that option. If anything, it will make the president a bit of a lame duck from the get go.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Misfit Chickposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, that is the point... We are intentionally electing a lame duck potus in protest to the two main political parties that did not originate with our original government. No matter which party has a majority in congress - there will be no 'deciding potus' to push things toward one party or the other. Its supposed to make both parties work together.
      
      We tried to bring in Obama with the Dems, and now Trump has been brought in with the GOP - both for the same 'we want change' reasons.
      
      And neither one worked - largely because they are attached to a powerful political party, neither of which is actually listening to or working for We the People.
      
      Thus, the 'political party protest'.
      
      Thanks for the input. I hope to hear from more people. If its a dumb idea, its a dumb idea.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Let me get this straight. You think if the majority of people put in #ProtesttheVote that the person who wins the most votes among the two actual candidates won't be put in office?

         replyreport
         1. 76

            Misfit Chickposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            No, I think it is highly-likely that one of the two parties will still win - narrowly. However, how many people were so sure that Trump would not win? It is meant to be a wake-up call for the parties - we will make it clear why we are protesting their 'rule' up to this point. Its not like its going to be a secret WHY we are not voting for them.
            
            They won't like it because it puts both parties in question - 'diverted votes' (or no-votes) creates the risk that there will not be a candidate elected by 'the majority' of citizens. That's kind of what happened with Trump this time around. (LoL - that is what happened!)
            
            And if the majority of citizens collectively participate in a protest like this - a message would be delivered loud & clear. That would be the intention behind this protest. Like I said in the beginning, the actual protest doesn't have to be a success to accomplish its mission to 'send a message'.
            
            I know many people feel that one HAS been sent with Trump. But, the only messages our politicians have received is that there are a LOT of angry people out here (and the most angry ones don't speak for our majority). And politicians are clueless as to WHY so many of us are so angry. They are uninterested in finding out why, its just easier to continue blaming each other and their 'stupid, brainwashed constituents', etc.
            
            We all want change, and we're not going to put up with childish conflicts that keep them from doing their jobs, anymore. Its time to move beyond the stalemates.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               I have to disagree with you here - I don't think it's possible that politicians are clueless as to WHY so many are angry or voted Trump.
               
               Yes, I know Trump voters are portrayed as uneducated, illiterate, racist, bigoted, stupid, etc.  But these are not stupid people in congress - they know better than to listen to the spin, empty rhetoric and hate filled messages from social media or even the actual media.  They are likely fueling the fires themselves, and they know very well that the reasons being given out are not what drove those voters.

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  Misfit Chickposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  I think it is entirely possible that many of them are clueless... and I have no doubt that they are also continuing to fuel the fires, themselves. I've talked about that before in other places. It is obvious that they are, because they are using the same arguements they have been using for decades to divide us as deeply as possible. That is WHY we're so uber-divided right now - cuz they are OLD arguments that have been whipped up & hyped AGAIN. As far as I am concerned, Trump just used their own propaganda machine BETTER against the GOP's base in order to hijack them. (Btw, you're not the only supporters who get accused of being stupid & brainwashed. Both sides throw that at each other and it has accomplished nothing. Diversify your information sources - that is the only solution.)
                  
                  It is 'what they know' - and it is what they know that works. Most congress reps are BUSY people with barely enough interest in seeing the world any other way beyond the 'one way' they see it. Why? Cuz they are like most of us - in a rut, not really paying attention and not really thinking for themselves.
                  
                  I'm not sure why you two are pushing against this idea so hard... What do you think WOULD be a good alternative to shaking up the parties? Trump obviously is not succeeding anymore than Obama did - again, because the arguments haven't changed and the stalemates continue.

                  replyreport
3. 59

   Live to Learnposted 6 years ago

   Thought you might find this helpful.
   
   https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen … allot-vote
   
   It appears that the option of #ProtesttheVote would not turn out the way you might hope. One of the candidates running would get elected. I doubt they would do anything in response to the write ins.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Misfit Chickposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I already acknowledged that one of the main political party candidates would probably be elected. Also, I had every intention of researching the legal aspects surrounding writing in a 'neither' vote - thanks for doing that for me. That simply means that we would have to get behind a 3rd party candidate.
      
      And if this protest didn't work... It could be extended into state congressional elections until both main political parties were barely represented in congress anymore. We didn't start out with these parties and they are not a requirement for our country.

      replyreport
      1. 55

         The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         But, Misfit Chick, if we read the Constitution's Article 1.2, 1.3 and Amendments 12 & 24 where We The People are to choose electors to seek people for the different states to elect Representatives, Senators, Presidents and Vices, respectfully, we would see there is no room for parties in the constitution. We The People would then be able to say as we once said, we have a "government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people" rather that this one we have where Corporations chose people to "run for those offices" and the electors to vote for the candidates they want, parties would then be eliminated period.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            17th amendment:
            
            "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote."

            replyreport
            1. 55

               The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               True, but the people still have to choose Electors to seek out senators from some other state since Article 1.3.3 [No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.] was not amended by Amendment 17. Then the People must then question them concerning their knowledge of the constitution and what they intend to do as a senator and accept or reject them as candidates before electing them.
               
               No wise document can be understood without understanding its Preamble is a prelude to what the entire document intends to achieve. Having parties and any other divisions in a nation can not achieve "a more prefect union" nor the other 5 thing intended to be achieved.

               replyreport
         2. 88

            MizBejabbersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Theo, I don't think parties will ever be eliminated because there have always been polarized policies from the beginning of this republic:  strong central government v. weak states and weak central government v. strong states. I think it will always be this way. The names of the parties have flip-flopped according to policy, but the opinions have remained the same. How can parties be eliminated when sides are not in agreement? The addition of a third underfunded party only results in under-qualified candidates that pull votes away from the qualified candidates and allow unqualified candidates in a major party to win.

            replyreport
            1. 55

               The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               MizBe, first let me correct my name as you write it. Theo should "the [number zero" or The0 representing a whole rather than "human" meaning part of man.
               
               According to Revelation 13:5 the United States is not supposed to last much longer than 42 months = presidents - the 22nd and 24th presidents were the same person and Harrison died of pneumonia before doing anything as president makes Obama the 42nd and Trump the one who leave office for the “son of man” to “suddenly enter his temple” of the White House and bring world peace before Revelation 13:10’s destruction by Revelation 18:6’s “double unto her double according to her works” befall her - therefore the "son of man" is the one to implement the constitution for the first time and establish the first constitutional government by first declaring Marshal Law after eliminating all department heads, congress and all except the last 3 Supreme Court Justices and Jeff Session [Ask Session about the status of  "Notice of Impeachment" ID number 3758011] who will purge the government of everyone else because 9/11 was treason. Then read U.S. Constitution Article 3, section 3 and see why that can be done.
               
               The constitution has always provided We The People the means to correct the government using Amendment 10 and Article 2, section 4.

               replyreport
               1. 88

                  MizBejabbersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  The0, sorry if I misspelled your name. Frankly, I thought it was a typo. I frequently have people misspell my name, too, including how you just addressed me. I am MizBejabbers, not MizBe. However, I am not insulted by the way you abbreviated it nor do I expect people to get it right every time.
                  The Bible does not dictate our Constitution or how long this country will last. It may have been interpreted erroneously by some self proclaimed prognosticator, and if you want to believe that, then that's your right. We can't jump every time some Bible thumper predicts the end of our country. It will end when it ends, not when the mystery author of Revelation may be misinterpreted to say so.

                  replyreport
                  1. 55

                     The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     No problem about the name, that is also one of my emails and when people write it they often think it is the "o" so I practice correcting it almost like a habit.
                     
                     I agree, "The Bible does not dictate our Constitution" although Revelation 12:5 calls it "a rod of iron". However, the Bible does determines how many president will either serve full terms, die in office after serving or serve and remove himself before "The Son of Man" suddenly (Malachi 3:1) appear in the White house taking over to bring world peace to has not seen since Cain killed Abel. Of course, one has to be REALLY be spirit led before coming to recognize what any scriptures' actual message is, that is the responsibility of the second stone Moses was told to speak to but smote who is to also be the prophet like him (Deut. 18:15 & 18).
                     
                     I am not jumping at the teachings of "Bible Thumpers" for I am, according to Isaiah 28:9, [one of the ones] Whom shall he [god] teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk [religious dogma], and drawn from the breasts [religion's teachers].
                     
                     Also true is "it will end when it ends" but there has always been a messenger sent to reveal what is to happen. I happen tone that messenger Malachi 4:5-6 proclaims will achieve that by turning those whose hearts [are to be returned to understanding of life] so they can survive the coming events. What happens to the rest is they will discarnate (Rev. 19:21) in "The Battle Of That Great Day Of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14) to reincarnate in the six millenniums (Rev. 20:5) to replenish the earth before the "new heaven and earth" where there will no longer be birth nor death (Rev.21).
                     
                     Believe it if you will or reject it though you may, I am doing my job of making it known for those who are able to receive it.

                     replyreport
               2. 95

                  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  "The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months."
                  
                  How did the word go from "month" (well understood by the people of the time as the period from full moon to full moon) to "president" (a concept pretty much unknown to the people then)?  And how did a month in office become not being there at all (I don't see any requirement in scripture for a president to "do anything")?

                  replyreport
                  1. 55

                     The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     Wilderness, you would have to be able to translate the symbols into something historical as I am doing the first five verses, 10 and 18's man of KJV Revelation 13 below in [brackets] to recognize it.
                     
                     1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea [Patmos near the Mediterranean Sea's east shore looking west], and saw a beast rise up out of the sea ,[Atlantic Ocean] having seven heads [major nations] and ten horns [war torn nations], and upon his horns ten crowns [passive because of understanding nations], and upon his heads the name of blasphemy [religions selling "salvation" for money].
                     
                     2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard [sly and cunning nation], and his feet were as the feet of a bear [strong militarily], and his mouth as the mouth of a lion [speaking royally of itself]: and the dragon [love of money collective conscious] gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
                     
                     3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death [U.S. Civil War: president Reagan]; and his deadly wound was healed [both survived it]: and all the world wondered after the beast.
                     
                     4 And they worshipped the dragon [the love of money collective consciousness] which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him [having Atomic bombs]?
                     
                     5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months [lengths of time and today the U.S. have had 42 performing presidents].
                     
                     10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity [the U.S. slavery and imprisoning]: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword [in order to obtain this land the U.S. killed and look at the military weapons the U.S. has used in war]. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
                     
                     18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man [Ronald=6 Wilson=6 Reagan=6 letters each]; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        Only problem with that is you can never know if your scenario is correct.  It is real easy to assign meanings to words, meanings that may or may not have been there at all, but that certainly doesn't mean that your guess is anywhere near correct.
                        
                        It's a major problem with vague predictions of the future.  After that future happens someone else takes up the cause, assigning events to predictions...predictions of something else.  But it fits, so is assumed to be what was being spoken of.

                        replyreport
                        1. 55

                           The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                           Once anyone is "born of the spirit" (John 3:2-8) they are led by the source of the revelations to interpret them. The main problem with religious people is they are saying they are spirit born but have no testimony of how it happened except "I accepted Jesus as my savior and am now saver" although what is called "new birth" appears in the ecological environment as metamorphose. Every metamorphosis takes time and once completed they do very little like they did beforehand. All you have to do is look at my photo and see I have had to have done something because I was not raised to live like I do, it was the reverse metamorphosis of the garden in Eden story in the Bible in preparation to live without civilization the being put out of the garden developed.

                           replyreport
                           1. 95

                              wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                              Yes, I saw in another thread that you consider yourself to know more about it all because your personal version of a creator has spoken to you, and only you, and given you Truth with a capital T.
                              
                              You have no know how inane that sounds; we've heard the same story for thousands upon thousands of years, and from thousands upon thousands of people.  There is just no reason to give credibility to yet another person making the same unsupportable claim.

                              replyreport
                              1. 55

                                 The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                 Every prophet through the ages have sounded that foolish to man-en-mass but they continued on with their mission. That is what sets spirit led people apart from socially conditioned people, look at 1 Peter 2:9's "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people [strange to man-en-mass]; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;" also reveals how actual spirit led people appear to everyone else.
                                 
                                 All prophecy concerning the coming of Elijah (Malachi 4:5-6) - if people knew who the Bible say is the last prophet pseudonymed Jesus - proclaim him weird. Read some of my Hubs and you will see. Carnal minded man can't comprehend spiritual reality - that's how it's designed - because they must continue incarnating as every attribute of man to qualify to be of those "chosen to survive civilization's end" called "Jews" in scripture.
                                 
                                 If what I'm saying means nothing to you, why bother to read it, is all I have to say. If you actually want to understand why is coming then follow along and see if I error but don't let Armageddon be closed (Matthew 25:1-12) before you realize it if you are a virgin.

                                 replyreport
      2. 59

         Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         I am all for a third party. If someone like you and someone like me could agree on a platform I think we could reasonably assume everyone could. It would have to be a true third party.  What say we figure out how to start a national movement to get one going?

         replyreport
         1. 55

            The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Live to Learn,
            The constitution doesn't allow for parties, as my hub "The U.S.Constitution's Spirit" shows, so why continue along the same corrupt path of dis-unnitint the states and government with only falls into the same corruption e have in place now?

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               "The constitution doesn't allow for parties"
               
               Really?  Can you quote the part that says people may not gather together to promote a specific person for election?

               replyreport
               1. 55

                  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  That is not a "political" party. That is a group of people who agree and desire a particular person who not a member of a political party working to get them elected.
                  
                  "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union" is the first place to deny "political parties" because a divided government is in no way perfecting a union of states and people. Amendment 12 is another. After, per Amendment 24, the people elect Electors they are to go to other states for several vice and presidential candidates to bring back to the people for the people to question them concerning their qualification and knowledge of the Constitution before the people choose to make them a candidate [for the state's primary is not written]. Then the people elects then with the Electors certifying them, winners and losers, to congress who [which is not written] notify every household of the nation of the possible 51of each presidential and vice [because DC is to elect Electors per Aemd. 24] candidates for November's election also eliminates parties.
                  
                  Now the thing for you to do is show us someplace in the constitution which IN ANY WAY suggests there are to be political parties.

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     "Now the thing for you to do is show us someplace in the constitution which IN ANY WAY suggests there are to be political parties."
                     
                     Unfortunately for that concept, the constitution does not give permission for much at all; rather, anything goes EXCEPT what is prohibited.  Which political parties are not; people may band together to do whatever they wish.  As an example, the constitution does not give permission to eat pork, but we do.  It doesn't give permission to form clubs (Elks or Mormons), but we do.  It does not give permission to drive a car, but we do, and we even gather in tremendous crowds to watch other people do it.  It doesn't even give permission to form fan clubs for the Dallas Cowboys, but we do.

                     replyreport
                     1. 55

                        The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        Wildeness
                        
                        The Constitution gave permission for "We The People" to, if either government doesn't do it, order the impeachment of anyone who commits a misdemeanor or anything above [High Crime] it by amendment 10. Read it. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
                        
                        By that same statement, if gave "We The People" the right to interpret the constitution if the government interprets it in such a way that they are able to justify their violating of it.
                        
                        Look at Article 6.3. "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." It made "We The People" superiority over our trustees in government, so, why don't We The People take what the constitution has provided us and eliminate the corruption in our government.
                        
                        All of that is the permission the Constitution has given to "We The People".  Don't that suggest that you can not read but only parrot words without understanding them or you have not read the Constitution?

                        replyreport
            2. 59

               Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               

               replyreport
4. 95

   Zeron87posted 6 years ago

   I am definitely for this...  but only if we got enough support to make this rolling ball large enough to do some damage.  I think a little competition from a third choice might make our two dominant political parties rethink their annoying, partisan leaning.  Seriously, American politics has become dominated by a mob mentality, making it a battle of "Us" vs "Them" as opposed to a choice between two different ways to better America.  It's sad the last presidential election wasn't about choosing the better candidate, but about which party had a more supportive base.  This is what American politics has become, and why we've seen so much corruption as of late.  If all you have to do is wait your turn in line, why try to outperform your opponent, especially when there are only two of you in the line?  American politics needs to evolve from a waiting game to a talent show, and a third political party that's a threat, with enough support to make it such, might be what we need to evolve it.  That's the type of change we need.

   replyreport
5. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

   Sadly, people are mostly conformists. They will not get on board with a third party for fear of wasting their vote. They will conform to the system as it is. The two party system is clear cut. What the candidate, who wants to become president, must do is choose a party and run according to the best ideals of that party. I do not believe your idea will work or even possibly take place, MFC. Trust and faith in national tradition is stronger than the urge to rebel or even revolutionize against it. I agree, revolutions should be peaceful, but that is for a more enlightened and peaceful time. Perhaps you are ahead of your time, MFC.
   
   The revolution will not be peaceful if and when it happens!  I believe war is more eminent than internal reorganizing. Maybe after the war things will be better in that the positives will become more obvious and sought after. We will understand our strengths and amp up on them. Our strength lies in following and enforcing the laws which promote justice FOR ALL. Especially the laws against monopolies, back room deals and taking advantages of loopholes to satisfy greed. (Ultimately, we must eliminate greed which can only happen from within a man.)
   
   The people must stay together for the sake of the nation. We must have borders. We must fix our economy. We are a nation under the sign of Cancer: a sign of self-protection, family and home. Cancer stores up money. We need to harvest our resources and keep ourselves safe from the other countries who want to buy us, over-take us and destroy us.
   Save our borders, save our people and unite under Trump. He's trying really hard.
   
   Stop being down with everything, including God, who (I believe) watches over and loves America.
   
   
   Thanks for this freedom of speech.

   replyreport
   1. 55

      The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      KLH,
      I believe the revolution will be peaceful. The Bible (Malachi 3:1) say "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me [MLK was]: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple [who fulfill MLK's dream], even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts." All of what is going on is to make it happen. Also, Revelation 7:1-3 say the "Battle of That Great Day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14) will not happen until the sealing of the "chosen" is complete which happens during Isaiah 2:2-4's world peace that began in the highest mountain or U.S. of America. Once that is fulfilled shall the before mentioned battle to end the world begin with the 5 wise virgins being protected in Armageddon (Rev. 16:15-16). So, the "son of man's time of rule" will bring about a peaceful solution to the world's problems but it will be short lived, maybe 4 years.
      
      Articles 2 section 4, 3 section 3 & 6 plus Amendment 10 of the Constitution combined is the means of making the transition peaceful because 9/11 was an act of treason if We The People were to fax Jeff Session and give him the which of the 13 Articles of Impeachment found in https://hubpages.com/politics/Why-And-H … Overthrown they find to be correct with your Notarized signature saying you want to include them with the signatures already in the "Notice of Impeachment" ID number 3758011 as the reason to eliminate all government Department leaders and the REVOLUTION will be over in a very short time. That is the way for the People to stay together, the ground work has already been laid which only need a few other signatures to force the issue.
      
      God has already provided the avenue for We The People to overthrow the corruption in government, all we need to do is follow god's messenger's lead.
      
      Thanks for god's messenger's knowing just was required and the hand full of people who will add their names to his work.

      replyreport