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

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Shadow01

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 8, 2011
    2,648
    119
    WCIn
    Then you have given up. But you really are just wrong. I suspect Indiana has a more open primary than most states, fewer signatures and the like needed to get on the ballot than many other states. There actually are three elections, getting on the primary ballot, the primary, the election.

    Complainers usually start a few weeks before the election but do nothing when they could have as evidenced by defeatist claims that play right into the hand of the COC. Conservatives usually put too many options on the primary ballot then the COC candidate wins…
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    30,780
    149
    Columbus, OH
    People aren't willing to vote third party to head off an elitist ********er from becoming a lifetime Senator.
    Let me know if you've heard this one before - you need to fix that in the/with a primary. If you believe most people will just vote 'R', then you need to get a good 'R' on the ballot. Third party isn't going to cut it anytime soon (if ever)
     

    foszoe

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Jun 2, 2011
    14,935
    113
    Let me know if you've heard this one before - you need to fix that in the/with a primary. If you believe most people will just vote 'R', then you need to get a good 'R' on the ballot. Third party isn't going to cut it anytime soon (if ever)
    That usually has at least 1 of three built-in assumptions.

    1. 3rd party can't win.
    2 3rd party causes an R loss
    3. The assumed damage done by a 3rd party vote is permanent

    1 is mostly true
    2 is possibly true
    3 is an untested hypothesis
     

    Ingomike

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    25,096
    113
    North Central

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    91,321
    113
    Merrillville
    I think emergency powers should be spelled out.
    And the 'timeline' might be between 72 hours and 60 days... I'd go closer to the 72 hours.
    Maybe 7 days.

    In 7 days, the House and Senate should have had enough time to meet and be briefed with the same info the Governor had.
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    30,780
    149
    Columbus, OH
    That usually has at least 1 of three built-in assumptions.

    1. 3rd party can't win.
    2 3rd party causes an R loss
    3. The assumed damage done by a 3rd party vote is permanent
    4. NO ONE pays attention to protest votes

    1 is mostly true
    2 is possibly true
    3 is an untested hypothesis
    4. Doesn't get any truthier
    Four
     

    foszoe

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Jun 2, 2011
    14,935
    113
    But 4 is pretty much false because the often made comment is a vote for a L is a vote for a D, or similar.

    So someone pays attention or cares

    Didn't the Ross Perot vote get blamed for Clinton winning?
     

    Shadow01

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 8, 2011
    2,648
    119
    WCIn
    I have no problem with this. If one wants the party nomination for the election they should be a member of the party.

    And is so enthused he didn’t even bother to vote in 2020 primary.
    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?
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    57,759
    113
    Gtown-ish
    You find it hard to believe that various conservative factions, whether they be anti abortion, pro gun, to name two, put forth their preferred candidates only to split the votes of the conservatives and allow the COC candidate to get the nomination?
    Wait. You're saying that establishment candidates make sure there are several for realz conservatives on the ballot so that they split the conservative vote so they'll win the CoC/neocon vote?

    I'm skeptical.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    57,759
    113
    Gtown-ish
    I think emergency powers should be spelled out.
    And the 'timeline' might be between 72 hours and 60 days... I'd go closer to the 72 hours.
    Maybe 7 days.

    In 7 days, the House and Senate should have had enough time to meet and be briefed with the same info the Governor had.
    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.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    57,759
    113
    Gtown-ish
    But 4 is pretty much false because the often made comment is a vote for a L is a vote for a D, or similar.

    So someone pays attention or cares

    Didn't the Ross Perot vote get blamed for Clinton winning?
    But voting for Johnson was a vote for D. :):
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    91,321
    113
    Merrillville
    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.
    We should be able to get a Senate and House together in a lot less than 30 days, even in a blizzard.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    57,759
    113
    Gtown-ish
    We should be able to get a Senate and House together in a lot less than 30 days, even in a blizzard.

    I don't think of the purpose of the timing is to give the general assembly time to deal with it. It's about whatever is the emergent thing and at what point is it no longer an emergency.

    I don't think general assembly has to get involved to handle a natural disaster, for example. Handling natural disasters is clearly an executive branch function. But in terms of using emergency power to handle it, at some point a natural disaster ceases to be an emergency. At that point, if the governor lacks the power outside of emergencies, the legislature needs to step in. So if it's having access to funding to deal with the disaster, legislature would have to appropriate it.

    EO's to mandate shutdowns should certainly not be indefinite. The governor should not have the authority to renew it beyond the time limit for emergencies, at least without the legislature's okey-dokey. And then they're on the hook with voters too. Not that it mattered.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    95,780
    77
    Southside Indy
    I don't think of the purpose of the timing is to give the general assembly time to deal with it. It's about whatever is the emergent thing and at what point is it no longer an emergency.

    I don't think general assembly has to get involved to handle a natural disaster, for example. Handling natural disasters is clearly an executive branch function. But in terms of using emergency power to handle it, at some point a natural disaster ceases to be an emergency. At that point, if the governor lacks the power outside of emergencies, the legislature needs to step in. So if it's having access to funding to deal with the disaster, legislature would have to appropriate it.

    EO's to mandate shutdowns should certainly not be indefinite. The governor should not have the authority to renew it beyond the time limit for emergencies, at least without the legislature's okey-dokey. And then they're on the hook with voters too. Not that it mattered.
    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.
     
    Top Bottom