Congressional challenger Charles Bookwalter booted from ballot

Monday, February 21, 2022
T. Charles Bookwalter

Barring a court intervention, a Thorntown Republican will not appear on the May 3 primary as a candidate for U.S. Congress.

In a Friday decision, the Indiana Election Commission voted to uphold two challenges to the candidacy of T. Charles Bookwalter, thus denying ballot access to the only challenger to Congressman Jim Baird (R-Greencastle).

The challenges were filed by Danville attorney Greg Irby, who serves as vice president of the Hendricks County Republican Party and Greencastle City Councilman Cody Eckert, a former legislative assistant in the Indiana House of Representatives.

However, Eckert briefly told the commission the two cases were being consolidated, with Irby briefly giving the presentation.

The basis for the challenge was the recently-amended Indiana Code 3-8-2-7, which states that candidates for U.S. Congress who wish to run on a major party ticket must file a declaration that they “affiliate” with the party by virtue of having voted for that party in the last two primaries or by obtaining a certification from the party’s chairperson from the candidate’s county of residence.

In Bookwalter’s case, he meets neither of the criteria.

“I did not vote in the 2020 primary because I did not have anyone to vote for,” Bookwalter told the Commission, “and by that I mean my congressional rep and President Trump ran unopposed.”

As for the second, Bookwalter was unable to obtain the approval of Boone County GOP Chairman Deborah Ottinger.

“The GOP chair in Boone County, where I reside, refused to certify that I’m a party member despite my having provided her with an affidavit detailing my lifelong support for the party and living its professed core values,” Bookwalter said.

He listed a number of these, including voting Republican in “nearly every general election since 2000,” working on campaigns in the past and having financially supported the party.

“There is no question that I’m a Republican,” Bookwalter said.

Taking it a step further, Bookwalter even noted that he remains on the ballot in Boone County to serve as one of his community’s delegates to the state Republican convention, yet he’s not Republican enough to run for Congress.

“The GOP chair acknowledged my conservative bona fides, encouraged me to seek a different office and suggested that I wait until 2024,” Bookwalter said. “She said she would not provide the certifications because I had not voted in two primaries. She also stated her support for the incumbent and questioned why I would want to primary him.”

Bookwalter also noted that neither of the challenges against him alleged that he was not a Republican, simply that he did not strictly comply with I.C. 3-8-2-7.

Calling the law unconstitutional, Bookwalter said the law has created a four-year waiting period for would-be candidates, which he said adds to “a cycle of disenfranchisement.”

“When professional politicians run unopposed there is no reason to vote in the primary,” Bookwalter said. “Then when the professional politicians create a crisis – which they always do – citizens have no recourse. Justice delayed is justice denied.”

He went on to note that when another candidate was denied a spot on the ballot two years ago based on the former one-primary rule, he was told he simply had to wait two years. However, that time period has now stretched.

“This is creating a democracy where only professional politicians can get on the ballot,” Bookwalter said. “Who’s to say that by 2024, the legislature will not rewrite I.C. 3-8-2-7 from a two-primary rule into a three-primary rule?”

“I’m here today to ask you not to violate the Constitution,” Bookwalter closed to a round of applause from the audience.

However, Commission Chairman Paul Okeson said that while he might have some sympathy with Bookwalter’s argument, the would-be challenger was asking the Commission to do something outside its purview.

“Whether I agree or disagree with the rightness or wrongness of what the General Assembly across the street at the Statehouse decided is not for me to say,” Okeson said. “Agree or disagree, that’s the threshold. You didn’t meet it.”

The chairman then made the motion to uphold the challenges.

“I appreciate the argument that you are making,” Okeson said. “Unfortunately, I don’t have a foundation upon which to agree with you.”

The Commission voted without dissent to uphold the challenges.

While Bookwalter did not find support from the Commission, the audience was a different story. Aside from the applause following Bookwalter’s statement, there were also catcalls from the peanut gallery following the Commission’s decision.

“Shame,” one man shouted, “shame on all of you.”

While Bookwalter has exhausted his chance to appeal to the IEC, his fight may not be over. While the Bookwalter campaign had not responded to a Banner Graphic request for comment as of late Monday afternoon, a statement from last week indicates there could be a legal challenge.

“If one or more of the challenges is upheld, Bookwalter plans to seek an order from the court allowing him to remain on the ballot, on the basis that I.C. 3-8-2-7(a)(4), as amended, unconstitutionally burdens his rights, and the rights of voters, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments,” the statement read.

Comments
View 34 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • We need more competition in primaries and general elections, not less. This is a ridiculous decision for democracy. We know why it was made though.

    -- Posted by Koios on Mon, Feb 21, 2022, at 6:33 PM
  • “I did not vote in the 2020 primary because I did not have anyone to vote for,” Bookwalter told the Commission, “and by that I mean my congressional rep and President Trump ran unopposed.”

    I believe he is incorrect here though, Bill Weld was on the Indiana ballot.

    -- Posted by Koios on Mon, Feb 21, 2022, at 6:54 PM
  • Catcalls from the peanut gallery?? Hmmm…

    -- Posted by kbmom on Mon, Feb 21, 2022, at 9:17 PM
  • If you think limiting access of candidates for office through ballot access rejection is fine, you are part of the problem.

    -- Posted by Koios on Mon, Feb 21, 2022, at 9:43 PM
  • Baird and the Indians Republican Party are worthless. They provide no value to the citizens of this state. Too bad the Democrats are too weak to even pretend to challenge them, and people here will re-elect a terrible governor by record margins rather than vote for an alternative candidate. You get what you deserve.

    -- Posted by techphcy on Mon, Feb 21, 2022, at 10:14 PM
  • Even if you feel, that you have no one to vote for. Get out and vote anyway. That way this stuff does not happen.

    -- Posted by ladycubs on Tue, Feb 22, 2022, at 8:07 AM
  • I am all for competition in the primaries and, frankly, tired of the same ol' rhetoric from all sides. A candidate should be allowed to run if they meet the residency requirements and get the signatures needed for the ballot - phooey on the new IC Code that helps incumbents. We get career politicians out of this because they know they will be protected....it's BS.

    -- Posted by infiremanemt on Tue, Feb 22, 2022, at 8:44 AM
  • Of the above who have a negative perspective on the primary access, a couple of questions:

    1. Are you a person who regularly votes in the Republican primary?

    2. Would you vote for the Republican candidate in the general election?

    3. Does the other party have requirements? I am asking out of curiosity because I think it would be good to compare the requirements.

    4. Should the requirements be the same for all parties?

    -- Posted by beg on Tue, Feb 22, 2022, at 11:04 AM
  • *

    1. No

    2. No

    3. I'm not smart enough to know. I've been busy fighting CRT and don't have time for this nonsense.

    4. Yes

    #NSCLPCCLPS

    #blessthefreedomtruckers

    #burnthebooks

    -- Posted by RSOTS on Tue, Feb 22, 2022, at 1:13 PM
  • *

    The Republican Party (a private organization) is free to include or exclude whoever they wish in their primary.

    Bookwalter has the option of running as an Independent or as a Libertarian or Constitution Party candidate. (Granted, as a Constitution Party candidate you still have to collect signatures to get ballot access b/c of Indiana's 2-party protective election laws.)

    However, perhaps some Republicans will start to wise up to the falseness of their fellow party members and the organization. Assuming that Bookwalter's story is true that Boone Co. GOP Chairperson refused to acknowledge known facts b/c it may prove detrimental to her personally preferred candidate, an act for which she should be removed from office - this tells you everything you need to know about the Republican Party (and Dem's aren't any better...they play the same games.)

    And don't be fooled...this has Baird's fingerprints all over it, despite what will undoubtedly be his pleas of innocence. He isn't above anything that will keep him in office.

    This is what happens when you let just anyone vote; when poltical parties (private organizations) gain political power; and the populace is dumbed down to allow it all to happen.

    Our forefathers would have had the tar and feathers fully ready by now.

    -- Posted by dreadpirateroberts on Tue, Feb 22, 2022, at 7:20 PM
  • Our forefathers also owned other humans as property. In 1789, only white, land owning men had the ability to vote in most states. While I don’t disagree with all that DPR said, let us use some reflection and perspective here.

    -- Posted by Koios on Tue, Feb 22, 2022, at 9:13 PM
  • Hmmm

    -- Posted by beg on Wed, Feb 23, 2022, at 4:15 AM
  • Mr. Bookwalter said: “I did not vote in the 2020 primary because I did not have anyone to vote for”. Wrong! Just because two of the candidates ran unopposed, he still could have cast a ballot either in favor of those candidates, or leaving them blank to indicate disfavor.

    -- Posted by Ben Dover on Wed, Feb 23, 2022, at 9:15 AM
  • To me there are two fundamental issues here:

    1) True or false? Did the GOP chair in Boone County actually refuse to give the certification (one of two options under Indiana code to be placed on the ballot) and did she express her actual support for the incumbent erasing that option by not being impartial? If true, she should be replaced immediately.

    2) True of false? Is Mr. Bookwalter indeed on the ballot to serve as a delegate for the Republican Party? If so, I agree it is inconsistent to deny him to opportunity to represent in one area of the GOP but not another.

    Limiting the vote one way or another, I guess.

    -- Posted by KeFord on Wed, Feb 23, 2022, at 11:00 AM
  • Pety issue of internal infighting.

    So unnecessary.

    Leave him on the ballot.

    We can sort it out for ourselves.

    -- Posted by direstraits on Wed, Feb 23, 2022, at 12:06 PM
  • *

    After listening to the subject of this article on episode 133 of the "Patriot Party Podcast," I was super stoked to see him challenge Papa Baird from the right. After the hour-long faux freedom fest interview, the hosts mentioned that he will "Marjorie Taylor Greene himself."

    I'd already started popping the popcorn. I'm truly disappointed.

    -- Posted by Bunny1E on Wed, Feb 23, 2022, at 12:08 PM
  • Koios,

    Thanks for the reminder regarding the founders of our country and their practice of owning people. Most of our citizens don't know or remember these things.

    It actually brings up a question that I have yet to come to a position on- should accomplishments of people be looked at on their own merit or thru the filter/ stain of wrong behavior. Owning another human is just awful. Another great example is FDR- He ordered American Citizens of a specific nationality into internment camps. Also abhorrent behavior. Should positive contributions of FDR be looked at on their own or thru the lens of his awful treatment of a certain people group?

    It really does shape how we view and teach history.

    I would enjoy your perspective

    -- Posted by beg on Wed, Feb 23, 2022, at 1:28 PM
  • *

    I believe our forefathers would be Truck Drivers in today's world...

    -- Posted by ridgerunner54 on Wed, Feb 23, 2022, at 3:45 PM
  • RSOTS

    I am disappointed you weren’t willing to engage on a serious intellectual conversation. I was interested in your perspective.

    Thanks for offering honest perspective on my first two questions.

    -- Posted by beg on Wed, Feb 23, 2022, at 4:47 PM
  • Beg, it goes to the idea of originalism in reading the Constitution. You gotta keep that original idea in perspective.

    -- Posted by Koios on Wed, Feb 23, 2022, at 9:45 PM
  • *

    Koios/Beg - The idea of limited enfranchisement (the right to vote) is based on the idea of who has skin in the game.

    While today it would not be practical to limit the vote to land-owners b/c many people choose to live in apartments or have other living arrangements, it is very practical to apply some sort of litmus test (a civics test would be a great start!*) to those wishing to participate in our government. Why would you want a nation of uninformed idiots choosing YOUR representative? (Idiot =/= someone with whom you simply disagree.)

    A poll tax of some manner (proof of actual taxes paid?**) would also not be out of the question for the simple belief of mine that those who depend on others for their bread have no right to demand butter.

    On a more precise point - Indiana has open primaries. One only has to declare (ask for) a particular ballot. Assured of your parties nominee? Want to create a little havoc? Get a primary ballot of the opposing party and have some fun!

    And yes, we are all well aware of the "great sin" of our forefather's and their acceptance of slavery...which was NOT universally held... and was a practice throughout the world since time began. However, I am pretty sure that today most people in the US (certain immigrant groups and the leftist-minded excepted) would find slavery to be an offensive idea that simply did not stand the test of time and ideals of liberty.

    And I am pretty sure that if viewed as a whole, you would find yourself in political alignment with those who still favor slavery - only in more subtle forms.

    * This would mean a more robust emphasis on actual education, civics, and critical thinking instead of the current sausage grinder of the public education system.

    ** Of course this would entail the complete reform of the current tax system.

    LOL, Koios just doesnt like the Constitution as a fixed idea of limited government. Only they are too scared to move to any other place in the world that more aptly fits their social/political view.

    Beg, history is largely written by the winners and as such isn't very objective to begin with. It is only years later, when the power of passion has subsided and objectivity can be better achieved, which includes looking at the actions through a proper lens of perspective, that we should look to ascertain the right or wrong of a person and their actions. And this with a goal not to judge but to learn.

    Stalin killed more jews than Hitler... but he was our ally in WWII so Hitler is tagged Public Enemy #1 b/c we can't have ourselves allied with Public Enemy #1.

    Henry Ford was a virulent anti-semite who supported Hitler...but he also revolutionized the world of industry and automobiles, which in turn was a large driver (pun!) of economic prosperity in the US at the time. So maybe we just downplay that character flaw of his.

    G.W.Bush is a GOP albatross. Once a darling of the GOP, he is now judged as simply mediocre in the kindest light. Having once said that [one] is either with us or against us... a common slogan of early Communist revolutionaries in Russia... he favored anti-Constitutional governmental policies like developing the DHS and TSA, and entangled the US in many foreign affairs in which we had no business.

    The US is the best country in the world (look at how many people try to get here) - yet we have our failures including slavery, genocide, and influence-meddling (a/k/a nation-building, interference in foreign elections, and general shenanigans outside of our nationally declared interests...assuming you believe in the Constitution as written). But truthfully, the same could be said of nearly all nations. Its a fault in human nature, which is a whole other discussion.

    Do our shortcomings make us less great? Probably. Does it negate our greatness? No. But it should give us pause to consider our actions. So it is with people. Temperance is key.

    -- Posted by dreadpirateroberts on Fri, Feb 25, 2022, at 9:13 AM
  • Well said

    -- Posted by beg on Fri, Feb 25, 2022, at 10:58 AM
  • A poll tax? Proof of land ownership? You have to be kidding right now. Those are archaic ideas for the powerful to continue holding power. I thought you were more supportive of representative democracy than that.

    -- Posted by Koios on Fri, Feb 25, 2022, at 10:18 PM
  • I think you missed the point by taking the comments literally.

    Then again, I should let DPR speak for himself

    -- Posted by beg on Sat, Feb 26, 2022, at 12:15 AM
  • *

    Koios - poll taxes and land ownership WERE some ways to insure that those voting had a stake in the matter being voted.

    Imagine yourself going to a Wal-mart corporate board meeting and demanding to cast a vote for the board of directors when you hold no stock in the company. They would rightfully tell you: No stock, no vote. It doesn't matter that you are a customer. It doesn't even matter if you work there. No stock, no vote.

    There is nothing stopping you from working hard and buying a single stock, or even lots of stock!, so that you now have a vested interest in the company itself and now have the RIGHT to speak your piece.

    Similarly, why should people who have no vested interest in protecting the rights of others (which is the basis of our system of government) be allowed to have a voice in that discussion?

    As I said earlier, those who rely on others for their bread have no right to demand butter.

    However, currently, that is an indisputable fact of our election system and it's failures.

    You are hungry and ask me for help. I may or may not feed you. This is my right, to say yes or no without issue. To dispose of my property as I see fit.

    You are hungry and come to me using the power of the government to force me to feed you. This is slavery (yours is willingly, mine is not), and if I refuse then violence by the government (or by you with the permission of the government) will be the answer for my refusal.

    As I said, land ownership would not be a feasible criteria today.

    But yes, poll taxes would. Imagine if voting meant so much to people that they actually had to save money in order to do so...they would have a vested interest in the process.

    (As an interesting aside: Robert Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers - as well as the movie by the same name - touches on this idea. Citizenship is not guaranteed, but must be earned in some way. Otherwise you are simply one of the populace without a voice in the government.)

    As it is, the general population is so dumbed down to the whole idea of government, nevermind the election process, that they simply accept what they are told without question b/c it doesn't cost them anything. If people had to actually pay for it, they would pay much more attention.

    Something to ponder: If the rancher fences you in, but your pasture is very large and you never go near the fence, you may not remember you are fenced and believe yourself to be free. As the rancher brings the fence in closer and closer, you see it but don't care b/c it isn't where you graze. Closer and closer the fence comes, and eventually you will realize that you are now penned for the shearing or the slaughter, but by then it's too late.

    I choose to not be a sheep inside the pen. I am a sheep dog walking the fenceline and am always aware of what is inside as well as what is outside of it.

    "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance", and "I prefer dangerous liberty over peaceful slavery" are two thoughts that are burned into my psyche, as they should be for every man.

    -- Posted by dreadpirateroberts on Sat, Feb 26, 2022, at 12:45 PM
  • Trivia question: What Amendment to the US Constitution is below?

    Section 1

    The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.

    Section 2

    The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    -- Posted by Koios on Sat, Feb 26, 2022, at 5:38 PM
  • *

    Not sure why - for what purpose and/or reason - you bring up the 24th Amendment. Was it b/c you felt compelled to respond in some way, and this was the best you could do?

    The 24th Amendment doesn't negate anything I said (that a poll tax WOULD work for the purposes I stated); the 24th Amendment wasn't ratified until 1964, which means the US seemed to do okay for 176 years otherwise (and therefore it DID work); and just b/c something is a Constitutional Amendment doesn't make it right or good, to wit:

    Prohibition was a Constitutional Amendment (18th) before repealed by another Constitutional Amendment(21st).

    Income tax (16th Amendment) is neither right or good as implemented.

    The 17th Amendment (the direct election of senators) is a socialist gremlin in the machine of our government.

    The 22nd Amendment is it's own brand of disenfranchisement by denying people from voting for their preferred presidential candidate more than twice.

    The 26th Amendment only works to muddy the waters of determining who is/isn't an adult (18 for contracts, military service, vote...21 to drink & smoke... 26 to get your own insurance).

    And that is without doing a deep dive into the benefits and faults of any/all the Amendments.

    But I don't think you were really wanting to discuss Constitutional Amendments, were you?

    Perhaps you were just wanting to share some trivia... in which case I have answered your question.

    Now, if you have a reasoned counter argument to my previous posts, I would very much like to hear it.

    -- Posted by dreadpirateroberts on Sat, Feb 26, 2022, at 6:41 PM
  • Poll taxes are horrible ideas that greatly suppress the right of people with lower financial resources to vote. The so-called 1 percenters already have a stranglehold on our politics, a poll tax would just make that worse. Unless you’d like to tie the amount of poll tax paid to ones wealth and income.

    -- Posted by Koios on Sat, Feb 26, 2022, at 7:27 PM
  • *

    Well, that is certainly a better argument. :)

    I am not sure I would agree, of course, but it is a better argument.

    I find it interesting that you once again call out the "1%" bogeyman, something that you have done before. Perhaps another time we can discuss your envy (or is it fear) of some nameless, unorganized group of rich people that have enough money to hit some arbitrary threshold that you have set.

    But for now we will stick with poll taxes.

    I have already stated my "skin in the game" beliefs, but I hear you on the amount of poll tax paid.

    You don't like the idea of "poor" people being unduly burdened by a poll tax but you are ok with "rich" people being unduly burdened by a poll tax? It seems like there is a lack of equality in this idea...but that can't be b/c you are all about equality, right? ;)

    What happens when you become one of the "rich" people? Or do you plan on never aspiring to be more than what you are now? B/c at some point someone with less money than you will declare you to be "rich" regardless of your own definition.

    But let's say we base a poll tax on one's income. (Wealth is a distraction b/c it would encompass taxing my children on money I have already paid taxes on... see inheritence(death) taxes.)

    First we should revamp the tax code b/c we know the "rich" have their slimy lawyers and greasy accountants who find all the loopholes so that they pay as little tax as possible. (Remember, Congress - the largest collection of "rich" people from both sides of the aisle - are the ones that write the tax code.) Let's revamp the tax code to make it a flat tax system. No deductions, no credits, no exemptions. No more loopholes. No more tax write offs. No more people getting $x+5000 back on their returns when they didn't pay any taxes to begin with. Fair enough for you?

    But I imagine you still think the "rich" should pay more... so let's do a progressive tax rate: 1%, 3%, 5% based on income. The only problem is... $100,000 is a fair amount of money in Indiana but lower middle class (if that!) in California. So we will have to make it local. Let's say statewide. That way we can get the state's rights people behind us as well. Everyone across the nation is paying the same rate model of 1/3/5% and the states can determine where the income lines are drawn. The states will be responsible for collecting the tax and sending it to the US Treasury, which eliminates the IRS. Sounds pretty fair to me. How about you?

    And we are not completely deaf to the plight of the poor, so lets say that if you are in the 1% bracket (the non-nefarious 1%) AND you have no interest in voting (b/c there are many people that don't), you may exempt yourself from the 1% altogether. Otherwise, no deductions, no exemptions... you made $50k last year? You owe $500 in taxes. (Assuming that $50k should be in the 1% bracket.) End of story. If you want to vote you must bring in your tax returns showing you paid your $500 in taxes.

    If you made $15k last year AND you want to vote, all you have to do is show proof that you paid $150 in taxes. Again, no deductions, no exemptions, no credits.

    How does that system sound to you?

    The evil "rich" are still paying more than your beloved "poor", and yet everyone that votes now has some skin in the game.

    Now, to get this to really work we have to agree that the Federal government is ONLY allowed to spend money on the things they were originally supposed to spend money on in the first place...you know, a more strict constructionist reading of the Constitution.

    This works well for the "poor" people b/c local government is the best government that can be more responsive to their plight and will be better managers of tax dollars than a bunch of "rich" people all hanging out in Washington DC spending tax dollars like drunken sailors.

    In fact, it would negate the need for all of those "rich" Congressmen (and women) to even be in DC for more than a few weeks at a time a few times a year.

    Which means that they could all stay in government-built dorms (or get special hotel rates) when in session.

    Which further keeps money and power local.

    To be clear, this really isn't a "poll tax" in the original sense of the word as an additional tax, but merely a proving of taxes paid to be able to vote. The Federal government would go back to being primarily funded by tariffs... as originally designed.

    Does this sound like something you could support?

    -- Posted by dreadpirateroberts on Sat, Feb 26, 2022, at 11:04 PM
  • You don't like the idea of "poor" people being unduly burdened by a poll tax but you are ok with "rich" people being unduly burdened by a poll tax? It seems like there is a lack of equality in this idea...

    Is there? I think not.

    -- Posted by Koios on Sun, Feb 27, 2022, at 8:57 AM
  • *

    Koios - if you were to take off the filter of class struggle that you seem to channel everything through and set aside your weird hate for the "rich" - perhaps you would see it.

    Let's try it this way:

    You don't like the idea of skinny people being burdened, but you are ok with the idea of fat people being burdened.

    You can change the descriptors to whatever you want... it doesn't change the fact that you believe it is ok to treat people unequally based on your own personal views. (For the record, that is pretty much textbook discrimination.)

    You are saying that not all people should be treated equally, whether it is measured by economics, weight, or what have you...even though you claim to be about equality. (Maybe this is part of your issue... you are struggling to hold onto two conflicting beliefs at the same time. A=B, but B=/=A.)

    I wonder if part of the issue is that you may be confusing "equality" with "fairness". Equality is an objective term meaning two things are equal in some, if not all, ways. Fairness is a subjective term that means whatever you want it to mean... and as we have not come to any discussion, nevermind agreement, as to the definition of "fairness", we will leave it out of our discussion.

    But it is not the equality of outcome that we should focus on (which is the focus of the socialist), rather we should focus on the equality of opportunity (which is more of a capitalist idea).

    "Rich" is a relative (subjective) term, and like "fairness", its definition largely depends on the perspective of the speaker. If you make twice as much as me, are you "rich"? You may say no but I may say yes.

    But what if you work twice as hard as me to make double my money? Doesn't it make sense that you would be twice as "rich"?

    And what if there is nothing stopping me from working twice as hard (and therefore finding myself on equal economic footing as you) except my own lack of motivation?

    Does it seem right/proper that you should be demonized for your desire to attain a certain level of economic power when the only thing stopping me from the same is myself?

    Even if life presents stumbling blocks to one but not the other, don't we both have a "no limits" opportunity on what we attain? Just b/c one has to work harder it doesn't necessarily make it impossible.

    There is no force that rightfully says A can attain this much, but B can only attain a subpar level in relation to A.

    So stop hating on the "rich" b/c at the end of the day there are only people, good or bad, and wealth doesn't matter.

    To paraphrase MLKjr: Don't judge a man by the size of his wallet, but by the content of his character.

    -- Posted by dreadpirateroberts on Sun, Feb 27, 2022, at 11:18 AM
  • Your word salads do not change the fact that a poll tax of any fixed amount would present a larger detriment to those of lesser means.

    I don’t know how you derive from that that I “hate the rich” and “equality blah blah blah”.

    -- Posted by Koios on Sun, Feb 27, 2022, at 12:04 PM
  • *

    LOL. Are you frightened by actual arguments presented in detailed format?

    Do real words with real meanings - as compared to your relativist approach that 2+2=4 today but maybe 2+2=5 tomorrow - present that much of a challenge?

    While we can likely attribute some of it to your public schooling, at some point you must take responsibility for your own education.

    I realize that my discourse is a bit harder to digest than simple slogans and you have to engage your brain more than simply parroting platitudes of hate about the evil "1%", but if you try I believe you can do it.

    You are an absolute mess. I almost feel sorry for you.

    I have been on this forum long enough, and we have tangled often enough, to know that you have a thing for equality and you have a thing against those that have more than you. Or is it a thing against those that have more than YOU think THEY should have? Either way, in this very thread you have derided the "1%" as though having wealth is the determiner of someones moral standing.

    But I shall entertain you for a bit longer and ask you a question in regards to your statement of "...the fact that a poll tax of any fixed amount would present a larger detriment to those of lesser means."

    It might. But what of it?

    Apparently you didn't bother to read or even try to understand what I said in my previous posts.

    When "A" is something that must be earned it is often of more value bc the person gave something up ("B") in exchange for it.

    If "A" is merely given to anyone and everyone, it has little to no value and will be treated as such.

    In regards to the vote that is not something to be desired.

    -- Posted by dreadpirateroberts on Sun, Feb 27, 2022, at 1:20 PM
  • It shouldn’t be harder for someone to vote due to their economic situation. I get that that is not a popular idea on the right at the moment, but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s true.

    -- Posted by Koios on Sun, Feb 27, 2022, at 2:59 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: