To mask or not to mask....That is the question. Part II

[jamil]

At this point is there really a difference?

Wait. I'm confused. Are you running or not?

 

[Shadow01]

If the party requires 2 primary election votes to be allowed in the party, at the age of 18 I would not be able to run for a local office as a Republican due to not having 2 primary votes under my belt.

 

[jamil]

So at the age of 18 you would deny me the ability to attach myself to the GOP to run for a local office as a conservative?

If the party requires 2 primary election votes to be allowed in the party, at the age of 18 I would not be able to run for a local office as a Republican due to not having 2 primary votes under my belt.

Them’s the breaks. Their party their rules.

 

[Ingomike]

So at the age of 18 you would deny me the ability to attach myself to the GOP to run for a local office as a conservative?

You can attach yourself to either party but if you want to run for office you need to be a member for two years. If you have to run you are not prohibited from running in the election as an independent or any other party that will have you, but as for the major parties they apparently agreed that their members need to be active party voters for two years.

 

[DragonGunner]

I wrote in my own name rather than voting for Todd Young last time. But I was told that would be throwing my vote away and would cause the democrat to win.

And in reality the democrat Todd Young did win. Why the GOP keeps backing this PA democrat plant is beyond me. And why so few see it is astonishing.

 

[foszoe]

And in reality the democrat Todd Young did win. Why the GOP keeps backing this PA democrat plant is beyond me. And why so few see it is astonishing.

Because he has an R by his name

 

[chipbennett]

Holcomb won in court. His actions were ruled as in accordance with the Indiana constitution.

With this super-majority of Republicans I'd like to see the state constitution changed to limit what powers a governor has in an emergency. That's not gonna happen because everyone in the state house with asperations won't want to limit their own power.

But "emergency" implies a time limit, which should be reflected in law. Emergencies are...emergent. I think it's fine to grant a governor emergency powers for a reasonable period, but a limit should be placed on the extent to which an emergency order can infringe upon rights. If the emergent conditions persist, it's no longer an emergency, by definition. If the condition is persistent, it's now a long term problem, which is the responsibility of the legislature.

So I think Emergency orders should expire in 60 days. If the legislature isn't in session, the Governor should call a special session to deal with it. The way it worked out, the EO was renewed several times. By definition, that's not an emergency.

Also, I think that lame duck public executives should be on the hook for more than getting re-elcted. l think by public referendum, the people should get to vote on whether a public executive should be tarred and feathered in the public square for acts of treachery. That should go all the way from school board member up to the POTUS. Would need a super-majority to eliminate partisan punishments. Eh, let's throw the press in there too.

IGA has GOP supermajorities. They could do something about it, and be veto-proof (the override of which only requires a simple majority anyway), but they chose not to.

 

[chipbennett]

Go wash your mouth out right now! Ugh, the mere thought makes me want to wretch.

Just because I'm stating the obvious/inevitable doesn't mean that I want it to happen. I will be the most surprised person here if somehow Holcomb doesn't run for Senate in 2024.

 

[chipbennett]

I think it is humorous that you think something could be done to head it off.

It's a long-term effort. We have to fix our bench, state house/senate district, by district, and then eventually replace the IGA leadership.

 

[chipbennett]

Is it the name or just the R next to the name? It isn't like there is competition most of the time for these idiots.

I think it can be both. See: the Bayhs.

 

[chipbennett]

I don't think 7 days is long enough. Probably 60 is too long. Say we have a big ass blizzard that takes weeks to dig out. I think 30 days is reasonable. But after that, it's no longer an emergency. A blizzard is clearly emergent and temporary and the problems it causes can take weeks to clear up. Power outages and whatnot.

But once you get 30 days or so, that's clearly no longer an emergency condition. Time to hand it over to the legislature.

30 days: authority to enact emergency measures and required to call a special session of IGA within that time period. No renewal of emergency powers, except by the legislature.

 

[chipbennett]

If the party requires 2 primary election votes to be allowed in the party, at the age of 18 I would not be able to run for a local office as a Republican due to not having 2 primary votes under my belt.

Parties are free to set their own rules for being a member/representative of that party. That's how freedom of association works.

 

[Shadow01]

You can attach yourself to either party but if you want to run for office you need to be a member for two years. If you have to run you are not prohibited from running in the election as an independent or any other party that will have you, but as for the major parties they apparently agreed that their members need to be active party voters for two years.

Would you then accuse me of taking votes away from the GOP when I have no chance of winning because I lack the support of the GOP?

 

[Ingomike]

Would you then accuse me of taking votes away from the GOP when I have no chance of winning because I lack the support of the GOP?

Sure would.

 

[Ingomike]

And in reality the democrat Todd Young did win. Why the GOP keeps backing this PA democrat plant is beyond me. And why so few see it is astonishing.

Why Are Republicans So Soft In Red States, Like Indiana?

It is often lamented here that our republicans are weak and soft, this article makes some excellent points on that topic. “In the big red states, everyone who is wants to get elected to anything joins the GOP. So, naturally, a lot of people who, in a non-red state, would probably be Democrats...

www.indianagunowners.com

 

[BugI02]

I don't think 7 days is long enough. Probably 60 is too long. Say we have a big ass blizzard that takes weeks to dig out. I think 30 days is reasonable. But after that, it's no longer an emergency. A blizzard is clearly emergent and temporary and the problems it causes can take weeks to clear up. Power outages and whatnot.

But once you get 30 days or so, that's clearly no longer an emergency condition. Time to hand it over to the legislature.

That presupposes your legislature is worth a ****. Taking back power from the executive will do no good if the legislature is a rubber stamp

It would be best to work on both problems simultaneously

 

[BugI02]

I think 30 days is more than adequate for any "emergency". As you've said, beyond that, it's no longer an emergency. It's a persistent problem that should be addressed by the legislature.

Covid is not an emergency now, nor should it have been back at the beginning, at least not past the first month or two when we really didn't know much about it. It's the freaking flu FFS. Deal with it like we've dealt with the flu forever. Rest, fluids, chicken soup, stay home if you're sick, whatever.

@jamil and @DD, I foresee a problem with members of the legislature being unwilling to shoulder the burden. In something like a disaster or pandemic, if they simply rubber stamp what the executive is doing/wants to do they will feel they can wash their hands of any responsibility. I would expect individual legislators would prefer to hang back and not get involved in the details until they are certain it has all come off the rails

I think it would be better to require that the legislature be required to advance legislation specifically confirming what actions it approves of and supports (with a record kept of the votes) rather than being able to convene via Teams and just rubber stamp what the executive is up to. Actual legislation would activate that balance of self-interest feature and insure a more robust debate. There is almost always someone who is at odds with a particular action and the ability to propose amendments to an authorization would help keep .gov in check

 

[BugI02]

I wrote in my own name rather than voting for Todd Young last time. But I was told that would be throwing my vote away and would cause the democrat to win.

In 2020, Republican representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks won her first election to the house BY 6 VOTES. Hopefully people would recognize a close race existed and not pull stupid but I hope you can see that should a race turn out closer than expected protest voting could really **** things up. She was re-elected and represents 1/5 of the current margin of 'victory' for republicans in the house. Had things turned out differently it would be a high price to pay so people can feel good about themselves. The ones who 'protest vote' have already had more than enough practice in that area

Boebert won by just 546 votes out of 300000+ (0.17%). If enough people come down with the vapors because a person half the age of the average INGOer got busy in a theatre and voted for themselves or any other candidate with no chnace in that district that could easily be another 1/5 of our margin in the house. Keep in mind just how horrible things have been when Democrats control anything and remember NUMBERS of representatives and senators are important. No matter how pastel their Stars and Stripes are, a milquetoast republican is almost always better than ant democrat

Even a Mitt Romney is useful for obtaining at least for the majority leadership in the senate, which provides real power

Keep in mind that razor thin margins are what the Romneys of the world seize on to magnify their own self-importance. The greater the majority the less power any one member can exert

 

[BugI02]

Because he has an R by his name

And his challengers did not make a strong enough case against him in the primary. That people will vote R reflexively is a feature not a bug

In reality, despite specific cases in which it can be argued a certain person rises above it, the reputation of libertarians is that they are all in some way crazy. Until that perception is changed L's will have a problem, the more so because many of them do have ideas that are not ready for prime time. The sensible ones would do better to make a name for themselves as republicans

 

[MCgrease08]

And his challengers did not make a strong enough case against him in the primary.

One more reminder that Todd Young did not have any challengers in the primary because the party wouldn't allow it.

And voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.