Getting rid of Holcomb

[JTScribe]

We sound like a bunch of abuse victims.
”I can’t leave him, no one will love me.”

 

[churchmouse]

Good God.

 

[bwframe]

Rob Kendal subbed in for Tony Katz today. He interviewed Curtis hill and Donald Rainwater

A very good listen...

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-tony-katz-today-31139000/

 

[JTScribe]

Good God.

Look, I understand your concern. But if we were to kick Holcomb to the curb, we'd likely have gridlock given the makeup of the Indiana House and Senate. Or are you worried about THEIR intestinal fortitude?

 

[two70]

Rob Kendal subbed in for Tony Katz today. He interviewed Curtis hill and Donald Rainwater

A very good listen...

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-tony-katz-today-31139000/

Yes, both were good segments. IMO, Mr. Rainwater acquitted himself very well and seems to be a credit to the Libertarian Party.

 

[BigRed]

Rob Kendall is urging people on his FB page to vote for Lib. Rainwater.

Anyone know anything about him?

https://ballotpedia.org/Donald_Rainwater

https://www.rainwaterforindiana.com/

https://lpin.org/donald-rainwater-bio/

 

[bwframe]

I could vote for Rainwater, if he'd commit to withdrawing when it became apparent that he could not win.

Damn sure not gonna ride that horse to get us another Donnelly though.

 

[churchmouse]

Look, I understand your concern. But if we were to kick Holcomb to the curb, we'd likely have gridlock given the makeup of the Indiana House and Senate. Or are you worried about THEIR intestinal fortitude?

I am worried about being saddled with another Mr. Stinky shoes Dem. puppet. We see how that works and it has been painful.

The enemy we know etc and so on. Organize and primary that Nancy boy out but pressure has to be applied on the "PARTY" (damnit that sounds so socialist) before we can get a candidate (even a libertarion) that can actually defeat him. This comes all the way from the top. If we try anything now I fear this will only get worse.

 

[Beowulf]

Quick - name a successful write-in candidate...

Never heard of him, except on INGO. That ought to tell you something. Nobody is going to vote for a no-name candidate. It's a losing proposition. If the Libertarian party wants its candidate to be taken seriously, they're going to have to spend some money to get their message out there. I have yet to see ANY "L" candidate do that. Wake me up if they do. That's just the reality of things these days.

The irony of making this statement in the same thread where people are supporting a WRITE-IN candidate is palpable.

Rainwater is on the ballot. Rainwater will be in the debates.

Lucas will be none of those things.

If all the folks in here and in the state that are upset at Holcomb want to send a message, vote for Donald Rainwater. Your write-in votes for Lucas won't even be tallied unless the numbers could possible make a difference (same with absentee ballots). That's the dirty little secret of how the elections work.

 

[BugI02]

This i would gladly support. If he made a 360 grew some balls I'd vote for him. Right now no I can't.

Your previous post (#101) concerns me a bit. What I am personally finding is perhaps only a third of 'conservative' politicians, maybe less, actually have the strength of their supposed convictions. When put to the test, they are panicky animals, akin to horses, that are more concerned with not losing their upcoming election rather than winning it

Before you put your faith in someone for high office who claims the mantle of conservatism, IMO it is best if they have been tested and have shown the depth of their convictions. Experience in Ohio has shown that too many are adept at talking the talk when nothing is on the line (for them). Our experiences have led me to believe that in almost all cases, true military experience (regular not just reserve) and the oath is invaluable. They are not perfect, but they are constructed of sterner stuff. They can seem not to be 'team players' but it comes from an expectation that the 'team' will have a clear chain of command. Younger is also better for being less hidebound and willing to consider novel responses to problems, and it comes with the added benefit of being beholden to fewer outside influences. Their staunchest supporters often are local and have been attracted to them due to agreement over the way forward, not because they see them as malleable and useful

Finally, look at the people they surround themselves with as advisors, this can give you a heads up to any disconcerting tendencies they may harbor on the downlow. My Ohio experience (with DeWine) has led me to believe there is no suchn thing as a safe, vanilla choice for a high profile job. Given the opportunity, the most lackluster politician will reach out and try to use it - the old saw about power corrupting has lasted so long for a reason. If you have chosen a party apparatchik this can be a disaster because they are a well oiled weathervane with severely eroded convictions, beholden to too many disparate interests and reluctant to disappoint or deny any of them

 

[BugI02]

So we have Holcomb acting and doing things just like Democrat governors in other states. Yet somehow he isn't a Democrat. Yet the belief here is putting Holcomb in is somehow better even though he basically does the same things a Democrat Governor would do.

That is the insanity I don't understand.

When you install a Republican, the electorate guides him when necessary by strengthening the party. The same is true of a Democrat while you are left to fight a rearguard action while they strengthen their party. Much of your energy is expended fighting your own rather than strengthening the overall mechanism, and a veto wielded by the other party is still apowerful instrument for causing trouble even when the state legislature is nominally Republican

Even knowing what I know now about DeWine, I would only replace him with a different Republican, I would never support a Democrat for the highest state office. Don't you think a lot of people wish they could take back their vote for Whitmer?

 

[BugI02]

The insanity is people actually believing they can write in a candidate this late in the game. Especially here.

The 2 party system is the issue. Who outside of that are you seriously thinking has any shot at the brass ring. There is no one and Holcomb knows it.
Again, if you split the vote that depletes the right. Gives that horrible example with the dems a serious shot at riding herd over us until we can do something in the primary's.

Now how is this insanity. I see it as reality. And reality sucks butts.

Your vote to do as you see fit with it but damnit people we argue over any and every ****ing thing and that's why we will loose this nation. We are being stupid. All of us. How do we get our heads out of our butt cracks and move forward in unison. You know, like the Dems do for Gods sake.

We sound like a bunch of damned woman.

Indeed, the best shot would seem to be to go out and find as well as support firebrands for state senator and representative and get them through the primary to the ballot. Whether by accident or design, Holcomb has chosen a time to clamp down when he is practically immune to consequences. Put your energy into installing the people who will be the mechanism needed to control any governor. That will start to pay off in two years, installing a Democrat is no better than having Holcomb for four more and much likely to be worse. If you really want change it usually needs to be from the bottom up, otherwise you're just changing the top block on a pyramid bvut leaving the base still built on sand

 

[JettaKnight]

Congress will not change it will still be ran by a majority of conservatives. The Governor has no power unless our conservative Congress gives in to him/her.

Since when did we decide that the federal government gives power to the states at their pleasure?


EDIT: The governors power is apportioned by the state constitution not Washington DC.




Wait, did you mean General Assembly?

 

[BugI02]

Since when did we decide that the federal government gives power to the states at their pleasure?


EDIT: The governors power is apportioned by the state constitution not Washington DC.




Wait, did you mean General Assembly?

Thank you for that too strict reading of what he said rather than what he meant, Dr Grammaticus

Even a Buckeye understood

 

[BigRed]

QUOTE=DadSmith;8376825]This i would gladly support. If he made a 360 grew some balls I'd vote for him. Right now no I can't.[/QUOTE]

Your previous post (#101) concerns me a bit.

It did me too. If he made a 360, he would be right back to the same point. Now, a 180 maybe?

 

[Trigger Time]

The irony of making this statement in the same thread where people are supporting a WRITE-IN candidate is palpable.

Rainwater is on the ballot. Rainwater will be in the debates.

Lucas will be none of those things.

If all the folks in here and in the state that are upset at Holcomb want to send a message, vote for Donald Rainwater. Your write-in votes for Lucas won't even be tallied unless the numbers could possible make a difference (same with absentee ballots). That's the dirty little secret of how the elections work.

I'll look at this option.

Even congressman hollingsworth came out today and slammed holcomb's edict as unconstitutional

 

[JettaKnight]

Thank you for that too strict reading of what he said rather than what he meant, Dr Grammaticus

Even a Buckeye understood

Give it a rest, Bug.


Great, you're smarter than me and realize someone meant something different than what they said.

 

[foszoe]

And that is why a better Republican is very unlikely to come along. Everyone votes for the (R) or (D) anymore and that isn't gonna change. It's like we are all skinner rats.

Sadly, until a better republican comes along, any vote for a write in, is a vote for a democrat.

 

[fullmetaljesus]

Curtis Hill for me thanks!

Lucas was OK until the pot thing. He cannot win in Indiana now. Drugs is a NO GO.

Odd, last numbers I saw the majority of Indiana residents supported legalization.

 

[foszoe]

This is just plain ignorant. If you want to equate it to not voting, maybe. Equating it to voting for the other candidate, no.

Since its exactly the same. I think I will just vote for the Democrat. Not seeing much of a difference.