1. I get it. Corruption is OK and ethics be damned as long as it positively impacts your cause.
2. I'm not defending nor am I for or against the law. It's simply the law. I don't know why it is written the way it is. Probably to keep tweakers off the ballot. If you want it changed elect legislators who will change it.
1. Doug did nothing corrupt, immoral, unethical, illogical, illegal, or irrational.
2. What is a tweaker, and why should they be kept off the ballot?
3. Why should the future ballot access of a party hinge on the success of the Secretary of State race?
4. If it is illegal to ask for support of a candidate or a party, then free speech is dead already.
5. Unrelated note. If the law turns tyrannical, it is our duty to ignore it and fight for liberty and protect the constitution. So I would encourage Doug to use his free speech in every forum and on every soapbox he can find.
6. If elections are stacked in favor of the 2-party system, then no Republicrat legislators are ever going to change that law.
Well, you made a decent choice, but Todd is a republicrat and used to work for Lugar. He showed up INGO back around the primaries and answered some gun related matters pretty well.If there was a Libertarian on the ballot we voted for them with one exception and that was Todd Young.
Not trying to start a fight, because I understand what you want to accomplish. Does anyone else have an issue with manipulating the voting process to benefit a particular political party? Isn't this exactly the kind of corruption we rail against Republicrats for?
But the request is not "so that voters have more, better options to choose from in the future". It is so that the Libertarian Party doesn't have to work to achieve it. Read the OP again.
Except that in this instance the request is made to circumvent state law. That should be a red flag to anyone, regardless of party or political leaning.
Maybe corrupt was too strong a word. I believe that he did desire to manipulate the process, and as a party official it was an unethical request. Since we all decide our own definition of ethics, I stand by my assertion while allowing that you do not agree. As I said, I wasn't trying to start a fight. Just looking to see if anyone agreed with me. Obviously not.
The request was NOT a request to circumvent state law. It was a request in assistance in abiding state law.
.
I didn't say there was anything illegal about it, and you have to lack any reason to claim I did. [snip]
Except that in this instance the request is made to circumvent state law. That should be a red flag to anyone, regardless of party or political leaning.
In fairness to mrjarrel, the following from your post on page 2 kind of sounds that way:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...quest_-_if_you_do_not_care-2.html#post1419188
Sincere apologies if I misunderstood something.
Circumvent: to manage to get around especially by ingenuity or stratagem
I never meant to imply there was anything illegal. I would have come out and said so if I did. I didn't because I knew there was nothing illegal about it. But an act doesn't have to be illegal to be unethical.
Libertarians wouldn't know the first thing about how to govern. A while back dross started an "if you were elected what would you do" thread. You could almost tell the Libertarian supporters based on the responses, which vascilated between ineffective, unachievable, unreasonable, and flat out goofy. But that's what you get when you're a debate club who does nothing but throw little rocks that hit just hard enough to annoy yet not hard enough to grab attention or make any difference whatsoever.
This is why he has a bone to pick with the OP. This is why it he thinks it is unethical to want to see more Libertarians on the ballot.