Pence Losing Ground In Governors Race

[Timjoebillybob]

Pence has made at least two unforgivable offenses so far as I am concerned. First is the RFRA fiasco which could have generated some excellent legislation had Pence not signed the sorry mess that was passed, or better yet, at least attempted to influence some positive changes before passage--oh, wait, never mind. That would have run contrary to what his owners wanted. Second was his participation in Constitutional Carry "I will sign it if it reaches my desk (God, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, don't let that reach my desk)". Pence can go bugger himself on a fence post.

Why was the original RFRA a sorry mess?

At face value, it may seem that way. The Indiana GOP's problem is that its owners have an agenda totally different from its base. Case in point, Eli Lilly and Cummins Engine, and by extension, the Chamber of Commerce are quietly pushing the homosexual agenda. The Republican base would never support that. The solution: Take what could have been reasonable legislation to protect people from being forced to compromise their beliefs under the threat of judicial retribution and instead push the monstrosity that was RFRA 1.0 with the intent of starting the sh*tstorm necessary to 'retreat' into RFRA 2.0 which offered no protection whatsoever for religious objectors in any way, shape, or form, but introduced the first elements of making homosexuals a protected class under Indiana law, all while convincing the social conservatives that they actually tried as opposed to doing exactly what they did, manufacturing a smoke screen for kicking the base in the nuts without it looking like that was what they did.

Funny thing, in a free market, we could have the freedom to refuse to provide services contrary to one's convictions while the buyer could rest assured that someone would make such services available.

Why was it a monstrosity? Simply because of the ****storm that happened? Or because what the law itself actually contained?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Out of curiosity, what are those and how is Pence following the Dem agenda?

Paying lip service to pro-gun legislation while being completely on board with it dropping through the cracks, promising to sign it if it reaches his desk while quite obviously not actually supporting it along with legislative leadership who let Dermody take the hit since he is retiring anyway and the RFRA debacle. Pence and the remainder of the GOP in RFRA 2.0 did exactly what their owners wanted done. They took the long way through putting up a show for the base deliberately writing the law Pence signed in such a way as to start the sh*tstorm it started to they could retreat into what they wanted to do in the first place erecting legal protections for homosexuals while doing absolutely nothing for people put in an untenable situation of being forced to violate their beliefs. The bottom line is that Eli Lilly and Cummins engine wanted that, in fact they wanted it bad enough to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a primary for state legislature for a seat they did not need to shut down a dissenting voice, and Pence, Bosma, and the GOP establishment camps under their desks, and vote/sign legislation accordingly.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Why was the original RFRA a sorry mess?



Why was it a monstrosity? Simply because of the ****storm that happened?

That legislation could have been written in a manner to simply remove civil liability in the case of people conforming to their system of belief. The problem is that the original RFRA was intended to do exactly what it did (i.e., start a sh*tstorm that they 'had to' retreat from and swing the opposite direction) as a cover for doing exactly what they did in RFRA 2.0. Follow the money. The money that owns the GOP has a diametrically opposite agenda compared with the people who vote Republican, and at the end of the day, the politicians obey their owners.

 

[T.Lex]

While I fault him for both (although perhaps I fault him for different reasons on RFRA), I have a hard time saying either position was in line with any Dem agenda. The Dem agenda does not include any increases for gun rights. The Dem agenda does not include any religious protections.

Again, I have no problem with non-support of Pence because of RFRA and gun rights. Or for a general lack of leadership, for that matter. I just think it odd to lump him into the "Dem agenda." For whatever that's worth.

 

[IndyDave1776]

While I fault him for both (although perhaps I fault him for different reasons on RFRA), I have a hard time saying either position was in line with any Dem agenda. The Dem agenda does not include any increases for gun rights. The Dem agenda does not include any religious protections.

Again, I have no problem with non-support of Pence because of RFRA and gun rights. Or for a general lack of leadership, for that matter. I just think it odd to lump him into the "Dem agenda." For whatever that's worth.

With gun rights we saw the Republicans (with Pence's approval and participation) dangling a carrot they had no intention of letting us have while the Democrats told us we don't need a carrot. At the end of the day, where is the difference?

The Republicans put forth a religious protection law deliberately engineered so that they will have to backpedal from it with a repeal and replacement with a law that weakened religious protection from its previous state, all so they could lie to the conservative base in the hopes of being voted for again. How is that different from the Dem agenda other than having to make a thin pretense of representing the Republican voters?

 

[indiucky]

While I fault him for both (although perhaps I fault him for different reasons on RFRA), I have a hard time saying either position was in line with any Dem agenda. The Dem agenda does not include any increases for gun rights. The Dem agenda does not include any religious protections.

Again, I have no problem with non-support of Pence because of RFRA and gun rights. Or for a general lack of leadership, for that matter. I just think it odd to lump him into the "Dem agenda." For whatever that's worth.

For some strange reason I thing Demagenda should be a word or a name....

"I am Demagenda!!!!!! For the greater good of all I will destroy you and your God Fearing, Gun Toting LIVES!!!!!!! All bow to Lord Demagenda!!!!! CONFORM!!!! CONFORM!!!!!!!! Destroy your ancient texts and your arms!!!! CONFORM!!!!!!!!!"

Sorry....

 

[Dead Duck]

Pence may not have signed for Constitutional Carry....Yet.
But he also didn't restrict my gun rights like any Democrat 100% definitely would have. In fact, I recall a bunch of laws being opened up for gun carriers.
I moved to Indiana in 09 and even I have seen an improvement in the gun rights here. If some was do to the Gov before him, than so be it, he was also a Republican. Would I have seen any improvements if the Governors were Democrats? Very doubtful.

BTW- How did we get access to Switchblades and Short Barrel Shotguns just lately? Would this have happened in a blue state?

 

[T.Lex]

BTW- How did we get access to Switchblades and Short Barrel Shotguns just lately? Would this have happened in a blue state?

Yeah, I was going to mention that stuff and the hunting changes, too. I know incrementalism is difficult, but it works. We are slowly moving in the "right" direction, and that's what counts IMHO.

On RFRA, it was a cluster foxtrot of a Pandora's box that should not even have been opened.

 

[Dead Duck]

As many may have noticed, I have a one track mind.

Gun Rights.

That's all. That's how I vote, that's how I live.
I have a simple mind - I'm a Duck.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

How is that different from Pence tepidly declaring he will sign it if it hits his desk while doing everything possible to prevent that from happening? It is much like the father of the bride promising to support the marriage if it happens while quietly slipping the husband to be poison.

Good point.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

For some strange reason I thing Demagenda should be a word or a name....

"I am Demagenda!!!!!! For the greater good of all I will destroy you and your God Fearing, Gun Toting LIVES!!!!!!! All bow to Lord Demagenda!!!!! CONFORM!!!! CONFORM!!!!!!!! Destroy your ancient texts and your arms!!!! CONFORM!!!!!!!!!"

Sorry....

That hit awfully close...I'm going to my safe room for awhile...

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

On RFRA, it was a cluster foxtrot of a Pandora's box that should not even have been opened.

I chalked that one up to the same political mind-set behind Diane Feinstein's 2013 assault weapons ban. She knew it would create controversy and that it would have little chance of acceptance, but she knew she'd get credit for fighting the good fight, and in fact some say she got more support from her own base after it failed. Maybe Pence would have come out better if RFRA hadn't made it to his desk in the form that it did.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

That legislation could have been written in a manner to simply remove civil liability in the case of people conforming to their system of belief. The problem is that the original RFRA was intended to do exactly what it did (i.e., start a sh*tstorm that they 'had to' retreat from and swing the opposite direction) as a cover for doing exactly what they did in RFRA 2.0. Follow the money. The money that owns the GOP has a diametrically opposite agenda compared with the people who vote Republican, and at the end of the day, the politicians obey their owners.

How exactly was it not written in that manner? And why do you say that the original RFRA was intended to start a ****storm? From my understanding it was written and passed due to the SCOTUS opinion in Hobby Lobby et al. If fact the nickname of the bill in the house was the "hobby lobby" bill.

I'll agree with you on the fix, but I don't agree that the original was intended to provide a path to that fix.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The current LP candidate for governor is a now and again member of INGO, (he doesn't post much because he has a real job that keeps him outside). He's a good man and easily as qualified as either of the other candidates.

Rex Bell - Authentically Libertarian

This guy seems pretty reasonable.

 

[seedubs1]

Vote out the bad ones. Pence, IMHO, is one of the bad ones. I'll vote to vote him out. If that means voting for a Democrat, so be it. I'll vote Democrat this time, and then try to vote in a Republican next time.

That's the only way to get the crappy ones out of office. Otherwise, we just keep electing them to the same office, or higher office. I want neither of those for Pence. He needs to go away.

 

[IndyDave1776]

How exactly was it not written in that manner? And why do you say that the original RFRA was intended to start a ****storm? From my understanding it was written and passed due to the SCOTUS opinion in Hobby Lobby et al. If fact the nickname of the bill in the house was the "hobby lobby" bill.

I'll agree with you on the fix, but I don't agree that the original was intended to provide a path to that fix.

You are failing to account for the people who fashioned, voted for, and paid for the original. Follow the money.

 

[MisterChester]

Still not voting for a democrat.

I'd rather have a competent democrat than a republican that didn't know his own ass from a hole in the ground, but I understand.

 

[Knight Rider]

I'd rather have a competent democrat than a republican that didn't know his own ass from a hole in the ground, but I understand.

The only competent democrat was last seen riding into the sunset on his rainbow colored unicorn.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

You are failing to account for the people who fashioned, voted for, and paid for the original. Follow the money.

Nope. I take them into account. Who fashioned, voted for, and paid for the original? Well I know who voted for it, which specific ones did it for the reasons you state? For your convenience I'll include a link to both rolls. Just in case you give an answer rather than buzz words.
https://iga.in.gov/documents/06d9e0a8
https://iga.in.gov/documents/9d42b26b

And follow the money? Is rapidly or already became just a stupid buzz phrase.

And you forgot to answer "How exactly was it not written in that manner?". For your convenience once again, in case you decide to give a factual answer.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Nope. I take them into account. Who fashioned, voted for, and paid for the original? Well I know who voted for it, which specific ones did it for the reasons you state? For your convenience I'll include a link to both rolls. Just in case you give an answer rather than buzz words.
https://iga.in.gov/documents/06d9e0a8
https://iga.in.gov/documents/9d42b26b

And follow the money? Is rapidly or already became just a stupid buzz phrase.

And you forgot to answer "How exactly was it not written in that manner?". For your convenience once again, in case you decide to give a factual answer.

$750K to buy a state legislature seat over the underlying issue here and 'follow the money' is just buzzwords. Get f**king real.