Getting rid of Holcomb

[BugI02]

I'm not voting for Holcomb, I'm voting against something far worse. This pissing contest needed to take place in the primary; it didn't. It's over unless you want something far worse. If (for example) you want mayor stinky shoes to become governor stinky shoes and that's going to make the state better because we got rid of Holcomb then I think you are part of the problem and not the solution.

I've asked this before and haven't gotten an answer. Why haven't the Libertarians been allying with conservatives and Republicans overtly, such as in positions like lieutenant governor? One of the paths to electability is to hold a junior office and show that one is capable and consistent. Then use that as a springboard to higher office

It seems that I pretty much only hear about Libertarian candidates when they think that political chaos somehow gives them an opportunity not available to them in more normal times. Instead of jumping right to 'abolish the IRS', 'Legalize it', 'return to the gold standard' and 'drastically cut government via slogan without thought to what, if anything, might be worth saving', why not work toward desired results by showing potential voters small scale change in desired directions, implemented by a thoughtful government heedful of the many disparate concerns of conservatives about too much change to fast getting out of control, can be palatable and good. Think where we could be now if Bush I had made Perot his VP, won his race and installed some Libertarians as cabinet members. For one thing, the movement would be remembered for how it helped stave off the Clinton menace, not for how it enabled it

Are the extreme positions playing to the base, supposedly a Trump flaw? It always seems Libertarians are fighting the last war. Whether you help elect a Democrat governor of Indiana or Democrat POTUS, the result is still the same - all your base belong to them

Edit: Not directed at you, Thor. Just using the post as a springboard to ask the question

 

[Expat]

Well. Until you die. Then Democrats own it.

Speaking of that. How do I unregister the wife? I wouldn't want her casting her first Democrat vote now.
But I don't really want to jump through a ton of hoops either.

 

[jspy5]

A good thing about America is that I own my vote. I get to cast it, or not cast it, for anyone I want. No one else gets approval rights over it.

In this day and age never assume your vote is being counted the way you intended. Friend of mine has worked the polls and seen the vote tally first hand and says it is ripe for dishonesty. All depends on WHO is doing the counting.

 

[jkoontzie]

I won’t be voting for either major party candidates, both parties are corrupt and work to enrich themselves at the expense of citizens. I don’t vote for “Lesser Evils”


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[SwikLS]

I've asked this before and haven't gotten an answer. Why haven't the Libertarians been allying with conservatives and Republicans overtly,

I've always said the way forward for Ls is to run as Rs but under the sub category of Libertarian Conservative. Since they haven't done that it just tells me they are more interested in splitting the vote on the R side which helps Ds.

As for Rs (particularly the establishment types) they would rather be 2nd place in a two man race than let outsiders in to run things. Case in point, Never Trumpers.

 

[jamil]

Lots of people like to declare what motivates people to disagree with us. Maybe instead of finding the most sinister reasons, be a little more evidence based. Because they want to split the vote isn’t a very well supported evidence based claim. If it’s all that difficult for you to figure out why Libertarians vote for Libertarians, and you won’t bother to consider all the ways you might be different as a primary motivation, maybe you should just ask Libertarians.

Here’s a clue. The card carrying, Ayn Rand worshipping real ass Big “L” Libertarians don’t agree with a lot of the Republican platform. They don’t agree on abortion, gays, drug war, military spending, foreign entanglements, patriot act, citizens united, basically most social issues, and the list could go on and on. Just because they share some common positions, they are not right wing per se, though some are. Many are left wing.

If you really have to guess why, rather than just assuming some nefarious reason, like, oh, they must just want to split the vote, maybe you could recall all the arguments with INGO’s Mr Jarrell. That dude was the epitome of the reason that many Libertarians won’t vote for Republicans. It’s because, though they also distrust government, support the 2a, etcetera, they are not Republicans.

 

[churchmouse]

I won’t be voting for either major party candidates, both parties are corrupt and work to enrich themselves at the expense of citizens. I don’t vote for “Lesser Evils”


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well that makes perfect sense.

 

[churchmouse]

Lots of people like to declare what motivates people to disagree with us. Maybe instead of finding the most sinister reasons, be a little more evidence based. Because they want to split the vote isn’t a very well supported evidence based claim. If it’s all that difficult for you to figure out why Libertarians vote for Libertarians, and you won’t bother to consider all the ways you might be different as a primary motivation, maybe you should just ask Libertarians.

Here’s a clue. The card carrying, Ayn Rand worshipping real ass Big “L” Libertarians don’t agree with a lot of the Republican platform. They don’t agree on abortion, gays, drug war, military spending, foreign entanglements, patriot act, citizens united, basically most social issues, and the list could go on and on. Just because they share some common positions, they are not right wing per se, though some are. Many are left wing.

If you really have to guess why, rather than just assuming some nefarious reason, like, oh, they must just want to split the vote, maybe you could recall all the arguments with INGO’s Mr Jarrell. That dude was the epitome of the reason that many Libertarians won’t vote for Republicans. It’s because, though they also distrust government, support the 2a, etcetera, they are not Republicans.

Truth but the party (yes the party) leaders are....well.......

They are just not a viable option regardless of what they support. I tend to agree with a a lot of the things they are about. But they lack any real ability to field a viable candidate.

 

[jamil]

Truth but the party (yes the party) leaders are....well.......

They are just not a viable option regardless of what they support. I tend to agree with a a lot of the things they are about. But they lack any real ability to field a viable candidate.

Libertarians are kinda unique. There aren’t many of them compared to people who identify on the typical left/right spectrum.

 

[churchmouse]

Libertarians are kinda unique. There aren’t many of them compared to people who identify on the typical left/right spectrum.

I agree and understand. I have friends and acquaintances who lean this way. The conversations have been most interesting but even they tend to tip the scales in a direction I do not want to go.

As I have mentioned on many occasions we as a group are as diverse as....well.....being diverse can be. The dems all blindly fall into lock step after dosing up on the koolaid and move somewhat in unison. Full of useful idiots and off the charts whacko's. Not that our group lacks a fair number of these but seriously, we are not unified.

 

[KLB]

Truth but the party (yes the party) leaders are....well.......

They are just not a viable option regardless of what they support. I tend to agree with a a lot of the things they are about. But they lack any real ability to field a viable candidate.

This has a lot of truth in it. There is also a lack of support by any kind of media that would help promote them to the general public.

Libertarians are kinda unique. There aren’t many of them compared to people who identify on the typical left/right spectrum.

Maybe Libertarians are, but I would say that if they were to ever get serious about running and winning, they would actually appeal to a pretty large audience. They do sit in the middle of the other two, and would appeal to people on both sides. It would seem though that they cannot bring themselves to get serious about things though, so they will continue to flounder.

 

[jamil]

This has a lot of truth in it. There is also a lack of support by any kind of media that would help promote them to the general public.


Maybe Libertarians are, but I would say that if they were to ever get serious about running and winning, they would actually appeal to a pretty large audience. They do sit in the middle of the other two, and would appeal to people on both sides. It would seem though that they cannot bring themselves to get serious about things though, so they will continue to flounder.

They're opposed to Abortion, favor gay marriage, and are starkly different from Republicans on many social issues. What common ground on those social issues do they have with Republicans? They're opposed to onerous gun laws, big government, "tax the rich" policies, etcetera. What common ground on those issues do they have with Democrats? They're doomed to their one or two percent every election, and on the rarest occasions, maybe 5. You could ask them to compromise some things to join one side or other, and many of them do. But they tend to be the uncompromising types, which many on INGO should understand.

Okay, for you Republicans who complain about libertarians voting for Libertarians as if you own their votes, here's a very hypothetical situation. Let's say the winds were different. Suddenly a crap ton of people turned real ass big L Libertarian, and now they're one of the two big parties. For you Republicans that still hold to your traditional values, what will you compromise to join the Libertarians so that Democrats don't get in office? You gonna give up your fight against Abortion? Give up your drug war? Stop caring about gay marriage? Give up your chamber-o-commerce? You gonna really vote for that? Some of you would. Some of you won't.


Disclaimer: nothing should be taken here as an endorsement of the LP. It's just an exercise to try to understand Libertarians better than the straw objects we construct to represent them.

 

[Twangbanger]

See, this is why we'll never get rid of Holcomb. Too many people see a single cast vote as an "affirmation of my views of life," rather than an isolated strategic act. We started out here with a specific tactical objective in mind. Now we're hip deep in the dorm room dork "Libertarian dissection" talk.

My vote on this one issue doesn't have to reflect my comprehensive views of life. I am willing TO VOTE DEMOCRAT to achieve the specific short term objective of getting rid of Holcomb. Even though I detest democrats. Because, they are most in a position to defeat Holcomb.

I want two things:

1) Holcomb, on a stick, being marched back to private life.
2) A petrifying lesson to future politicians of ANY affiliation, who are considering going down the road Holcomb did because what medical experts think is more important to them than their constituents making choices about their own lives.

I don't consider Richard Mourdock to have been a failure, overall. He got rid of an entrenched Republican ******* who couldn't have been gotten rid of any other way (Lugar), because of stupid habitual lever pulling. The cost to our side was one term of Donnelly. One and done. Which is exactly how long a democrat Governor will last.

"But Twang," you say, "not everybody is willing to put aside those deep-held beliefs, even for one vote. They want to get rid of Holcomb by voting for someone who reflects everything they believe in the whole wide world."

Fine, then. Back to my opening line. You don't want to get rid of Holcomb bad enough. You are not willing to make a sacrifice move in a chess game. I get it. You want to win every, single, move. That's your "purity test."

Just understand two things:

1) This thread was started over the Mask Mandate, regardless whether that's what you're personally interested in.

2) In making that mandate, Holcomb shows he understands the concept of a "sacrifice move." He wants reelected, and he calculates the number of petrified, scared, health-compromised old people who are HAPPY to see others forced to wear masks, far exceeds any number of freedom loving individuals who will make a sacrifice vote to get rid of him. He's playing the odds. And he's betting "fear of coronavirus" and "fear of a democrat" are together strong enough to keep him in office.

So if you're not prepared to do what I'm willing to do, please just understand you're going to get beat by Holcomb because he understands sacrifice-play better than you.

PS - yes, yes dear...I understand any democrat we elect may likely make the same mandate. But remember, we get a chance to punish THEM in 4 years, too. We're trying to create a political "third rail" here that nobody can touch, regardless of affiliation. If you truly believe in VOLUNTARY action, focus on the objective in front of you, or we will all be wearing masks every flu season the rest of our lives.


Yup I edited it.
But I see your points.

-CM-

 

[BugI02]

Lots of people like to declare what motivates people to disagree with us. Maybe instead of finding the most sinister reasons, be a little more evidence based. Because they want to split the vote isn’t a very well supported evidence based claim. If it’s all that difficult for you to figure out why Libertarians vote for Libertarians, and you won’t bother to consider all the ways you might be different as a primary motivation, maybe you should just ask Libertarians.

Here’s a clue. The card carrying, Ayn Rand worshipping real ass Big “L” Libertarians don’t agree with a lot of the Republican platform. They don’t agree on abortion, gays, drug war, military spending, foreign entanglements, patriot act, citizens united, basically most social issues, and the list could go on and on. Just because they share some common positions, they are not right wing per se, though some are. Many are left wing.

If you really have to guess why, rather than just assuming some nefarious reason, like, oh, they must just want to split the vote, maybe you could recall all the arguments with INGO’s Mr Jarrell. That dude was the epitome of the reason that many Libertarians won’t vote for Republicans. It’s because, though they also distrust government, support the 2a, etcetera, they are not Republicans.

But we do not have proportional representation in our government, like a parliament. While I can see the lure of election money at the federal level from achieving 4% (I believe) voting in a national election, that will never get a libertarian agenda passed. Representation at all levels in this country is going to be a binary contest for the foreseeable future, so the only way I can see the unwillingness to work within the system can affect policy is negatively. At some point, don't they all need to settle in their own heart whether the one effect they can have, that off siphoning votes predominantly from a right/Republican candidate, will result in anything that they claim to support? Name anything being proposed by Biden or Schumer or Pelosi that should be welcomed by a libertarian. Hope and change?

To a certain extent, the power to destroy something gives a group some leverage over that something, but it's a one shot deal; you have to live in the rubble too, and the other people forced to live in that rubble are not likely to suddenly love them some libertarians and raise up their party ideals and candidates. If we review the lessons of history, the likes of Ralph Nader or Ross Perot are not revered to anywhere near the extent of supporting viable third party candidates nor influencing more than briefly party platforms. If a third party candidate with traction were to arise on the left, I would not welcome it as providing an alternative to the current bankrupt progressive ideology, I would welcome it for its destructive potential to the mainstream Democratic party. I can conceive of no 'woke light' version of what the left has on offer that would be acceptable

It's like the 4th rule of gun safety, "Be sure of your target and what is beyond it". Make sure you are targeting what you think and pay attention to what might happen if you miss

 

[jamil]

See, this is why we'll never get rid of Holcomb. Too many people see a single cast vote as an "affirmation of my views of life," rather than an isolated strategic act. We started out here with a specific tactical objective in mind. Now we're hip deep in the dorm room dork "Libertarian dissection" talk.

My vote on this one issue doesn't have to reflect my comprehensive views of life. I am willing TO VOTE DEMOCRAT to achieve the specific short term objective of getting rid of Holcomb. Even though I detest democrats. Because, they are most in a position to defeat Holcomb.

I want two things:

1) Holcomb, on a stick, being marched back to private life.
2) A petrifying lesson to future politicians of ANY affiliation, who are considering going down the road Holcomb did because what medical experts think is more important to them than their constituents making choices about their own lives.

I don't consider Richard Mourdock to have been a failure, overall. He got rid of an entrenched Republican ******* who couldn't have been gotten rid of any other way (Lugar), because of stupid habitual lever pulling. The cost to our side was one term of Donnelly. One and done. Which is exactly how long a democrat Governor will last.

"But Twang," you say, "not everybody is willing to put aside those deep-held beliefs, even for one vote. They want to get rid of Holcomb by voting for someone who encompasses everything they believe in the whole world."

Fine, then. Back to my opening line. You don't want to get rid of Holcomb bad enough. You are not willing to make a sacrifice move in a chess game. I get it. You want to win every, single, move. That's your "purity test."

Just understand two things:

1) This thread was started over the Mask Mandate, regardless whether that's what you're personally interested in.

2) In making that mandate, Holcomb shows he understands the concept of a "sacrifice move." He wants reelected, and he calculates the number of petrified, scared, health-compromised old people who are HAPPY to see others forced to wear masks, far exceeds any number of freedom loving individuals who will make a sacrifice vote to get rid of him. He's playing the odds. And he's betting "fear of coronavirus" and "fear of a democrat" are together strong enough to keep him in office.

So if you're not prepared to do what I'm willing to do, please just understand you're going to get beat by Holcomb because he understands sacrifice-play better than you.

PS - yes, yes dear...I understand any democrat we elect may likely make the same mandate. But remember we get a chance to punish THEM in 4 years, too. We're trying to create a political "third rail" here that nobody can touch, regardless of affiliation. If you truly believe in VOLUNTARY action, focus on the objective in front of you, or we will all be wearing ******* masks every flu season the rest of our lives.

I mostly agree here. But a few comments. In my previous posts I gave one explanation of why you can't have nice things. People can ride their principles into the dirt. You can't expect a Libertarian to vote for any establishment Republican, even when that might be a better strategy in the long run. We're not going to think in terms of strategy though because we all want the things that we think are nice. There's always a "them" to defeat.

You're absolutely right that people tend to want candidates they think are best suited to forward their values. People do think in terms of principles. That's generally a good thing but sometimes to reach the principles you want, you have to be more pragmatic. Holcomb may not be well suited to forward the values of most INGOers. But he is better suited to forward them than the Democrats. And that means that a lot of right leaning people will hold their noses and vote for Holcomb because he's not as bad as getting the D. I do get that argument that CM and some others here are making. Sometimes lines have to be drawn though. It's hard to do that when we think that the country is hanging on a thin thread and about to fall into a socialist abyss. We think every election is THE election. I dunno. When a Republican governor announces an order for the strictest mask policy in the nation, stricter than any Democrat, it's time to run Holcomb out of town. He's not fit to lead.

 

[BugI02]

I mostly agree here. But a few comments. In my previous posts I gave one explanation of why you can't have nice things. People can ride their principles into the dirt. You can't expect a Libertarian to vote for any establishment Republican, even when that might be a better strategy in the long run. We're not going to think in terms of strategy though because we all want the things that we think are nice. There's always a "them" to defeat.

You're absolutely right that people tend to want candidates they think are best suited to forward their values. People do think in terms of principles. That's generally a good thing but sometimes to reach the principles you want, you have to be more pragmatic. Holcomb may not be well suited to forward the values of most INGOers. But he is better suited to forward them than the Democrats. And that means that a lot of right leaning people will hold their noses and vote for Holcomb because he's not as bad as getting the D. I do get that argument that CM and some others here are making. Sometimes lines have to be drawn though. It's hard to do that when we think that the country is hanging on a thin thread and about to fall into a socialist abyss. We think every election is THE election. I dunno. When a Republican governor announces an order for the strictest mask policy in the nation, stricter than any Democrat, it's time to run Holcomb out of town. He's not fit to lead.

I think it's too little, too late. After the primaries, there is little minimally destructive change available to you. A better program would be to assure candidates at the legislative level committed to reining in the governor's power in that area and requiring legislative involvement in such decisions. It is easiest to effect change at the most granular level and from the bottom up. You can get a legislature more unfriendly to this issue in only two years and attempt to limit the governor's authority to end run the legislature immediately after. You can have two tries at it, and keep a governor at least nominally amenable to other priorities that you support, or you can usher in a Democrat who will use those four years actively working against other priorities you favor and who will seek to strengthen the enclaves of progressivism among you in any way possible, because that will be his only path to re-election. Even if such a one is unsuccessful, he can do a lot of damage in four years that is unnecessary. It's a low percentage move dressed up like a noble sacrifice

 

[jamil]

But we do not have proportional representation in our government, like a parliament. While I can see the lure of election money at the federal level from achieving 4% (I believe) voting in a national election, that will never get a libertarian agenda passed. Representation at all levels in this country is going to be a binary contest for the foreseeable future, so the only way I can see the unwillingness to work within the system can affect policy is negatively. At some point, don't they all need to settle in their own heart whether the one effect they can have, that off siphoning votes predominantly from a right/Republican candidate, will result in anything that they claim to support? Name anything being proposed by Biden or Schumer or Pelosi that should be welcomed by a libertarian. Hope and change?

To a certain extent, the power to destroy something gives a group some leverage over that something, but it's a one shot deal; you have to live in the rubble too, and the other people forced to live in that rubble are not likely to suddenly love them some libertarians and raise up their party ideals and candidates. If we review the lessons of history, the likes of Ralph Nader or Ross Perot are not revered to anywhere near the extent of supporting viable third party candidates nor influencing more than briefly party platforms. If a third party candidate with traction were to arise on the left, I would not welcome it as providing an alternative to the current bankrupt progressive ideology, I would welcome it for its destructive potential to the mainstream Democratic party. I can conceive of no 'woke light' version of what the left has on offer that would be acceptable

It's like the 4th rule of gun safety, "Be sure of your target and what is beyond it". Make sure you are targeting what you think and pay attention to what might happen if you miss

A real ass Ayn Rand worshiping Big L Libertarian is not like a conservatarian (a conservative who leans libertarian). Most conservatarians vote republican because Libertarian candidates are rarely conservative enough and go too far on their Libertarian ideals. So that said, make the same argument you're making for any fringe Party. Go ahead. It doesn't work because they're not voting to put their own people in power, because they know they won't win. It's not winning the election that's as important to them. Sure, they'd love to win. What's important to them is voting in league with their principles. Perhaps the Green Party exemplifies this the best because they have more in common with the Democrats than Libertarians have in common with Republicans. The Green Party doesn't vote Democrat for a lot of what Twang was getting at. They're very principled voters and they do share many of the same values with democrats, but the ones they care about most are uber important and supercede all the rest. They insist on supporting candidates whose most highly valued principles align closely.

You and I can sit here and think about that pragmatically and say, uh, you'll never get what you want. You never break 2%. You'd get more of what you want if you just sided with the side closest to you. But then they'd also get someone who has vastly different values in other areas. The point is, they have similar values, but they prioritize some values so far above the rest that it is immoral to them to compromise on those at all. The Green Party wants only the bat **** craziest environmental policies, anything less than that is immoral to support. Libertarians are much the same way. That's what kinda makes them fringe. That's why it doesn't matter that they win as much as it matters that they vote for people who have their shared values at the very top, where less than that is an untenable compromise. I'm trying to make it as clear as possible that they're really not one of you. You can't count on their vote. You can't expect them to reasonably re-evaluate their priorities so that they can maybe get some of their values accomplished while. Rand Paul is perhaps the most pragmatic libertarian I've ever seen on the national stage. He's an anomaly. But a good example of how a Libertarian can work withing the Republican party to forward libertarian ideas.

 

[churchmouse]

Several mind changing points being made here.

To clarify my stance.....I am breathing fresh air today by the very grace of God believe in him or not. I do. For reasons.

Now, at 70 years on this damned rock I see every day as a blessing and a gift. If you take any of my time from me I feel slighted. These bastages have stolen an entire year from me and mine and I am seriously pissed about that. No power on earth will get it back for me. I am well on the backside of my time here. We never know how much we have until the stop watch clicks and its over.

The mere thought of anything even resembling that waste of oxygen the locals have giving us for mayor makes me cringe. 2 times they have done this. Holy Mother of what ever deity you kneel to.

4 more years would be a blessing for me. To live under the big D and all the that candidate stands for is just way to damned far off the reservation for me.

But Twang speaks in solid truths. Now confusion reigns and I am lost.......

CKW will absolutely not pull that "D" lever after she looked that POS up.

So now,

 

[jamil]

Several mind changing points being made here.

To clarify my stance.....I am breathing fresh air today by the very grace of God believe in him or not. I do. For reasons.

Now, at 70 years on this damned rock I see every day as a blessing and a gift. If you take any of my time from me I feel slighted. These bastages have stolen an entire year from me and mine and I am seriously pissed about that. No power on earth will get it back for me. I am well on the backside of my time here. We never know how much we have until the stop watch clicks and its over.

The mere thought of anything even resembling that waste of oxygen the locals have giving us for mayor makes me cringe. 2 times they have done this. Holy Mother of what ever deity you kneel to.

4 more years would be a blessing for me. To live under the big D and all the that candidate stands for is just way to damned far off the reservation for me.

But Twang speaks in solid truths. Now confusion reigns and I am lost.......

CKW will absolutely not pull that "D" lever after she looked that POS up.

So now,

I'm not voting for a Democrat either.

You have to decide for yourself what your values are, and how you prioritize them. You get to decide how you will spend your vote, unless you're a Democrat, in which case, it's how to spend your votes and your dead relatives' votes. Anyway. We are all just expressing our opinions about strategies and values and whatnot.

 

[BugI02]

We have a Kasich available! We'll pay the freight

Some of you people like him for some reason