It is misleading simply because if one wants to be a delegate for X, the voter (at least me) assumes the proposed delegate is truly a supporter of X and not a mole for Y. Is this consistent with Objectivist ethics?

You are so far beyond the scope of the question I posed that I will not respond further.

It is misleading simply because if one wants to be a delegate for X, the voter (at least me) assumes the proposed delegate is truly a supporter of X and not a mole for Y.

If you voluntarily choose to participate in a process in which information is systematically hidden from you, you should expect that such information is hidden for a reason, and not assume that those hiding such information are honest and have your best interests at heart.

This whole delegate mess makes me very happy that I’m not a Republican.

Yes it is. Please re-read my post above.
Ends: "Secure your liberty against those who use the political process to destroy it."
Means: "Any defensive action that does not violate the rights of others not involved in the dispute."
How is self-defense inconsistent with Objectivist ethics?

please let me apologize, Richard. . I did not intend to
signal controversy, but instead to criticize the mis-led
innocent people -- the voting public -- who have for decades
continued to expect more from "the best politicians
money can buy" here in the u.s. . Yes, I am glad that
this reporter brought this out felicitously. . it's just that
the games being played with our votes dismay me to tears. -- j
.

I would compare the current political system to the point in Atlas Shrugged where the financial and regulatory system makes it so that the only honest men are those who deal in secret.

Is it ethical to deal in secret in politics? I do not think so. However I have always liked this ethical question.

FDR poked and prodded Japan to attack us. Even ordered the admiral that was over Hawaii to ignore his instincts that said they were about to be attacked and sent all the newer ships away so we would only loose the old ones.

FDR recognized that if the US did not get into the war Germany would become to powerful to stop. He asked for and got a plan to get Japan to attack us, then let it happen. It was the only way he saw to get the Americans to get away from isolation.

I think there were likely other ways to deal with this problem that did not involve 3k Americans dying and multiple ships lost. Lets assume for the argument that there was not.

If true what FDR did was not ethical, but required for the future freedom of the US and world citizens.

When the Sons of Liberty took tax collectors, stripped them down and left them tarred and feathered on the lamp post in front of the tax collection office in Boston it was certifiably not ethical to do so. As the "Join or Die" changed to "Don't tread on me" the organization changed from a non ethical terrorist organization to a natural law and reason driven group. Without the unethical start to the sons of liberty I am not sure that America would exist.

It is something I am very devided on. I would greately prefer all actions to be ethical, but the truth is without some breaches of ethics for the right reasons the world would be a much worse place. It is also true that without the breach of ethics for the wrong reasons those breaches that were done in response would not have been needed.

I think perhaps when a system exists that is completely unethical and void of reason the only remaining course of action is also going to be unethical, but full of reason as to why it must be done. That however is a very slippery slope and it is rare that the first steps down it are taken and then the person or organization is able to pull back to an ethical position.

The sons of liberty did so, the US government has never pulled back from the manipulations used to get us into world war II.

I do not think the question is if its ethical or not, as its obviously not. The question is are there cases where a breach of ethics is needed, and if so is this such a situation?

I personally still have these two questions and am not sure of my answers on either at this time.

the Nazi has by his/her nature has violated his/her right to truth (or life) by choosing who to side with...when they turn around i execute them and feed them to the sharks...

all in context of the situation....if Nazis come to the door looking for Jews...Jews are inside do you lie or tell the truth...i lie

How can a would-be delegate mislead you when you don't even know who he or she is, and are given no opportunity to see that person's stands on the issues and candidates? You said earlier that "we do not even get the individual's name, we get only they are pledged to a particular candidate."

Spoken like a true Christian (or Muslim or ...). But, the question is whether lying to innocents is consistent with Objectivst ethics.

It is bizarre how eligibility for the highest office in the government seems to be based on the honor system. Apparently no agency is responsible or even authorized to determine that someone is actually eligible.

If a 25 year old ran for office, who would demand to see his birth certificate to determine that he was at least 35? Would anyone who brought the issue up be called a "birther"?

AT least CNN's reporter brought it out in one interview. However, to my surprise, misleading innocent people seems to be controversial even here at the Gulch.

I do not understand how this applies to the question, which is whether the behavior set forth is consistent with Objectivist ethics.

Does this include misleading innocents?

This sounds like "the ends justify the means" which drives me to ask: is this behavior is consistent with Objectivist ethics?

You say: "Is it ethical. Yes because they folowed the rules.." Do you think this coplies with Objectivist ethics?

It is misleading simply because if one wants to be a delegate for X, the voter (at least me) assumes the proposed delegate is truly a supporter of X and not a mole for Y. The proposed delegate should make the duplicity clear and by failing to do so commits the sin of ommision.-- promotes a lie.

It is misleading simply because if one wants to be a delegate for X, the voter (at least me) assumes the proposed delegate is truly a supporter of X and not a mole for Y.

this is what you get in a fascist/socialist oligarchy...and with the islamic/theoterrorist religion, you are being honest when you lie to non-believers...

the shameful thing is that this is news. . we should have
expected as much, and known it in advance. . these folks
are playing games with money and power, at the expense
of us taxpayers, and this kind of maneuvering should be
anticipated. . IMHO. -- j
.

If all the people were invested (owning, producing or creating value) and informed (issues, and the constitution- what max freedom and max responsibility is) or if only those people that are, then we could have a honest direct system.

It's not a simple yes or no question. Legitimate Objectivist arguments could be made on both sides of the issue. In the context of a corrupt system, it is often the case that any course of action will encounter ethical land mines. Under such circumstances, our job is simply to navigate them as best we can.

I would say that to secure your liberty against those who use the political process to destroy it, any defensive action is justified that does not violate the rights of others not involved in the dispute. And by the way, I am not a supporter of Cruz or his methods, since I don't consider him to be a friend of liberty in any meaningful sense.