We’re continuing to gather input on whether or not we should exclude any group from GOOOH. If you have not taken the survey, please spend a few minutes and do so. It can be found here. Note that you must be a member to participate.
To date, roughly two thirds of members have voted in favor of exclusions as originally defined (no politicians, no lawyers, and no person with more than $11.5 million in assets). The exclusion of ACLU donors is the only area where we are getting significantly different results: well over 80% of members do not believe they should be allowed to participate.
We’ll allow the survey to continue for a few more weeks, and then the Question Committee and the GOOOH Board will determine how to proceed. Since GOOOH was first launched the most consistent message we have received is that we should not exclude any group or individual, only those who are constitutionally ineligible. Instead, it is suggested, we should require each participant to declare whether or not they meet any of the exclusion criteria and then each individual, during their selection session, can determine for themselves who should be excluded. It's difficult to argue with the logic of this approach and it does also encourage those who are excluded today to help us recruit new members – our initial goal.
We definitely want to hear what you have to say. Post a reply to this blog, comment in our forums, or send an email to goooh@goooh.com. Together, we will reclaim our government!
Navigation Menu
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
About Us
Blog Archive
Followers
5 comments:
keep the ideas the same, those types of people would get weeded out anyway. people of those classes are so far down the money trail it's imposible for them to see the truth. the right person would have a much more further inner vision of fluent truth.
Before answering the question of whether or not to exclude, you need to answer the question of what the purpose of the organization is going to be.
Are you wanting to be inclusive or are you going to be exclusive.
From the rhetoric I have read, you wish to be exclusive. If this is the case, then make no bones about the ones you want to exclude. Set you standards and go forth and see if you ideas gain traction.
You have identified actively practicing attorneys and have asked about whether or not anyone "contributing to the ACLU" should be excluded. Does this mean only money? Could this also mean time? or participation in a lawsuit filed by them?
What about family members of current Representatives, or staff membeers of current Representatives? or previous politicians? (and if so how deep into the political ranks - only national politicians or how about state politicians, or county office holders, or city office holders - where do you want the cutoff point for exclusion to be?)
Do not misunderstand my post. I find the idea of using the internet and its phenominal communication capability to stimulate/whet the appetite of those of us who feel impotent to take back our country. Impotent because of a lack of wealth to buy our way into a position of respect from our elected officials, whose goals seem to be to get relected so as to gain more power and influence, so they are more likely to get relected to gain more power and influence, and on and on, growing further and further out of touch with what the majority of their constituents believe and want, and their constituents grow more and more hopeless.
Be bold in your mission. Be concise and direct in you plan. use the internet to reach millions. See if your ideas gain traction, and if they do go proudly forward.
Me personally, I vote for excluding attorneys, period.
I absolutely believe we should exclude the groups I have proposed excluding, but GOOOH is intended to be about much more than just my personal beliefs. The intent of GOOOH is to have a system that the people own, and a process that is non-partisan and not influenced by special interest groups. The system is intended to reflect the voice of the people, not just my personal opinions.
I started with my heartfelt belief of what I thought was requried to get our nation back on track, but recognize that my beliefs may not be correct. If the members of the system desire to make changes, once we have critical mass in membership, then we will make whatever changes are required.
To date, the overwhelming majority favors keeping the system as proposed, but we do not yet have enough members to call where we are definitive.
Our mission remains to get every person in America to know that GOOOH exists so they can evaluate the merits of the system. Collectively, we will evolve the system.
one of my closest friends is an attorney and wants to see the change. why would he promote a group that excludes him. I have another very good friend that is worth well over 11.5 million who would be good for GOOOH. I feel if you do not exclude anyone, the organization will explode with new members!
We're looking for a groundswell of support that says do not exclude anybody. To date, it has not appeared. When the overwhelming majority of GOOOH members agree, on any issue, the system will change.
Post a Comment