Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't recall ever bolstering Lively, only pointing out serious injustices of that entire election. I probably would have voted for him, for several reasons. It wasn't like there were a lot of good options.
None of anything I have posted here, has anything to do with the fact of him being a "centrist".
You bolstering Lively, despite overwhelming evidence that he's a religious extremist prone to hateful and dangerous rhetoric:
As for the constant portrayal of Lively being a right wing religious wacko, I don't quite understand it. When looking at it where he stands on major issues of the day, I can't think of a single one that is significantly different from Reagan's (a man who took Massachusetts twice)! Even a Democrat like JFK's weren't really that different. The only thing that really stands out about Lively (over those others) is his religiosity and how much he brings it into the campaign. I don't necessarily see that as a negative, as long as he doesn't cross the line with it. If he truly is the God fearing man he claims to be, that should at least keep him honest and provide him motivation to care for the state's well being over the overwhelming temptations that political office can bring.
Either way, I will say this...I believe that Scott Lively is an honest and sincere man with good ideas for the state, and that he is not the hateful bigot that the left (and Baker) is trying to paint him as.
Fake News Media: Scott Lively is a controversial extremist. Reality: Most of Scott Lively's positions echo that of mainstream Republicans, far more than Charlie Baker in fact. Traditionally, even plenty of Democrats are closer to Lively's stances than Baker's.
You may not be posting about Baker being too far center/left in this thread, but it's clearly your primary gripe:
As for Baker, he continues to be a traitor. He has spent more money and effort defeating conservatives and even those who helped him in the past, than actually promoting conservatism in the state. Stuff that is too extreme for even many on the left ie. sanctuary cities and transgender bathrooms, he turned out in favor of after he campaigned against them. Supposedly a fiscal conservative, legislators somehow wound up with a 40% pay hike. Baker is a fraud.
Not just a RINO, Baker is to the left of most Democrats. Any other state he would be a Democrat. Again, study up on his platform rather than listening to propaganda. He has many good ideas re. all issues facing the state. Due to his background and many personal hardships, he is able to relate to the common man as well as the disadvantaged in ways that Baker never will.
Baker is left of Reagan on social issues (particularly abortion and drug policy), as well as most fiscal issues. Gay marriage, Transgender Bathrooms, Sanctuary Cities... those things hadn't been invented in his day, but I can't imagine Reagan being for those.
First of all Baker is not even a moderate, Romney was a moderate. Baker is an all out liberal. Many Democrats lean right of him on most issues.
And at least for me (and my guess many others), the biggest problem with Baker isn't his moderate stances. Those things never hurt Romney, Weld/Celluci, etc.; or at least conservatives were able to forgive them for it. The thing is, people feel betrayed by Baker. He has a severe loyalty problem; and rather than simply trying to walk both sides of the isle to maintain electability, he has spent a great amount of time and resources attacking members of his own party. Some of them were his "friends", people who helped get him elected. It took a LOT for Baker to earn their trust, now that is forever lost and that "lesser of the two evils" strategy will have a much harder time selling in the future. With that said, I am registered as "unenrolled" and owe nothing to either party. I simply seek candidates with integrity and who I feel will bring a balance to the often kooky politics of the state.
So yes, you did state your anti-Baker stance isn't about him being a moderate, rather, it's that he turned on the party. However, I can't help but believe there is correlation between the two in terms of your perception.
You bolstering Lively, despite overwhelming evidence that he's a religious extremist prone to hateful and dangerous rhetoric: .
Defending is not the same as bolstering. Here we go again, making very accusatory claims when the evidence is just not there (a main point of that thread).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrewsburried
You may not be posting about Baker being too far center/left in this thread, but it's clearly your primary gripe:
It's A gripe, not the primary. Read the bottom paragraph about what separates him from other "RINOs", and how much of it has zero to do with ideological purity. He simply lacks HONOR. I'm registered as an Independent. I voted for Romney twice. I held my nose and voted for Scott Brown in 2012. Wrote in Kasich for the 2016 general election. Voted for several Democrats in past local races. You can't say I have zero tolerance for moderates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrewsburried
So yes, you did state your anti-Baker stance isn't about him being a moderate, rather, it's that he turned on the party. However, I can't help but believe there is correlation between the two in terms of your perception.
It's completely possible to be a moderate, or compromiser; without throwing your "friends" to the wolves or totally forgetting who got you there or where you came from.
Defending is not the same as bolstering. Here we go again, making very accusatory claims when the evidence is just not there (a main point of that thread).
It's A gripe, not the primary. Read the bottom paragraph about what separates him from other "RINOs", and how much of it has zero to do with ideological purity. He simply lacks HONOR. I'm registered as an Independent. I voted for Romney twice. I held my nose and voted for Scott Brown in 2012. Wrote in Kasich for the 2016 general election. Voted for several Democrats in past local races. You can't say I have zero tolerance for moderates.
It's completely possible to be a moderate, or compromiser; without throwing your "friends" to the wolves or totally forgetting who got you there or where you came from.
1) Defending extremists is bolstering. I'm not a particularly binary person, but there should be enough self awareness to not cherry pick positives when a candidate harbors hateful and extreme views.
2) Your failure to address policy over character has people on this board, including myself, believing you have fallen for far-right rhetoric and you do not have a sober perspective on what a moderate Republican looks like. He abandoned his party? Do you mean his reluctant and delayed support of Diehl? As an independent I firmly believe Diehl abandoned strong Baker support the moment he went all in on Trump - of course Baker was reluctant to support that. Given Baker's tepid association with the national Republican platform, he's been torn by the far-right who seem to not understand that there are local and nation platforms. This is not a Baker problem, this is a party problem.
1) Defending extremists is bolstering. I'm not a particularly binary person, but there should be enough self awareness to not cherry pick positives when a candidate harbors hateful and extreme views.
What kind of research did you do on Lively to make that determination? You see I actually did some digging myself, and was able to debunk much of what the left media (and Charlie Baker) was tossing at him. That is not cherry picking positives, that is setting the record straight. You have to read through that whole thread to see where I was going, and I do believe I acknowledged some of the flaws of his candidacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrewsburried
He abandoned his party? Do you mean his reluctant and delayed support of Diehl?
No, I mean that he stuck it to HIS own people. The "MA" GOP imho had at that particular point done a pretty good job at becoming a "big tent" party. They had a few years of gains in the state house, and different factions within the party were setting aside their differences to accomplish a common goal (primarily which was to offer a counter-voice in a very one-sided state). A big example of that, was when many "conservatives" put those ideological differences aside to elect Baker believing that it was in the best interest of the state and as well as the health of the GOP. Point is, Baker NEEDED that extra support of the conservatives (who largely snubbed him in 2010) and would not have won the election without them. Rather than return that favor, he spent (significant) party resources to actually replace those grassroots fighters (yes you read that right) with his own "yes men". So rather than use the same funds to bolter the party ranks, he turned on the same folks who largely put him where he is today. That is shameful, and unbecoming of any leader.
The state’s soaring payroll — a lofty $7.74 billion last year — is blowing past what Bay State residents pull down, one government watchdog warned. “The state payroll has been growing at a much faster rate than the median household income for Boston. It’s unsustainable,” said Greg Sullivan, the former state Inspector General now at the Pioneer Institute.
Unlike others on this board, I don't always misalign with him. However, when Massnative chose to politically bolster Scott Lively, that should have been a clear indication to all on the board as to how far right he(?) is politically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrewsburried
Your failure to address policy over character has people on this board, including myself, believing you have fallen for far-right rhetoric and you do not have a sober perspective on what a moderate Republican looks like.
Why do you feel it necessary to bring others into it? Is your argument so weak that you can't simply speak for yourself?
Why do you feel it necessary to bring others into it? Is your argument so weak that you can't simply speak for yourself?
Weak? No, I'm simply pointing out that Massnative can claim his anti-Baker stance is rooted in some vague abandonment by Baker of his own 'people', however, his history on this forum shows he's equally motivated by policy. Massnative may have been a moderate, but it's obvious his perspective is now far right of center ... yet he's unwilling to acknowledge that Baker's tolerance for liberal social policies deeply bothers him and is very much a motivator in his stance.
Additionally, trying to save face on his staunch defending of Lively is quite sad. A sane centered person would never willingly defend the guy and this conclusion can drawn through reading and observing the best source available - Lively himself.
Weak? No, I'm simply pointing out that Massnative can claim his anti-Baker stance is rooted in some vague abandonment by Baker of his own 'people', however, his history on this forum shows he's equally motivated by policy. Massnative may have been a moderate, but it's obvious his perspective is now far right of center ... yet he's unwilling to acknowledge that Baker's tolerance for liberal social policies deeply bothers him and is very much a motivator in his stance.
Additionally, trying to save face on his staunch defending of Lively is quite sad. A sane centered person would never willingly defend the guy and this conclusion can drawn through reading and observing the best source available - Lively himself.
I understand you and much of this forum feels that Right to Life, Gun Rights, fighting corruption, drug treatment policies that actually work, removing families from government dependency...are extremist positions. Doesn't hold much merit in a subjective sense, that's for sure. But I'm not talking about Scott Lively anymore, this is the wrong thread for that. That I offered a "different" perspective and took a look at that race through a more critical lens (which in turn branded me as an "extremist" by yourself), does not negate the facts and argument I have presented in this current thread. One or two posters have offered legitimate counter facts as to why they disagree with my views on Baker and why he deserves this compensation, etc. (while I don't agree with them or that they outweigh the bad, still fair game and totally on point with this discussion); you however were not one of those. You are clearly not here to argue facts, but to mock and label other posters. Even if what you claim about my views held a candle, that still does not discredit any of my arguments.
As for what you describe as a "vague" abandonment, it was pretty well documented. Rather than use the money and resources to actually grow the party, he spent nearly $1m running against themselves. Some of those "ousted' were among the most effective party leaders the state had seen in a long time and the party was actually on a slow rebound. Ironically, he also owes his election victory to them. It goes much deeper than what the news printed, some of the dirty moves Baker pulled during this process. In order to protect people's privacy, I cannot really post any of it here.
The article you posted merely article supports my position that far-right conservatives, including yourself, are pissed that he's courting centerist dems and 'rockefella' types over the modern conservatism movement. People are just salty their vision of America is intangible and their "liberal governor" has Dems fawning over him - it has nothing to do with his morale character.
Lively has blamed every decline or genocide in modern history on 'the gays'. 'nough said - he's tappeed and dangerous if given a platform.
The article you posted merely article supports my position that far-right conservatives, including yourself, are pissed that he's courting centerist dems and 'rockefella' types over the modern conservatism movement. People are just salty their vision of America is intangible and their "liberal governor" has Dems fawning over him - it has nothing to do with his morale character
He's not just courting centrists, he's made a great effort to eliminate those who don't fall in line with his "brand" (so much for the "big tent" party). Rather than put aside ideological differences to further interests of the party at large, he's sent the message that they aren't welcome. And it's not like all the people he targeted were even hard righters. Some of them just weren't his "yes men", that he felt he could control. There is absolutely nothing wrong with courting moderates, but the focus should be on challenging DEMOCRATS (as opposed to members of his own party). That's where you really see where his loyalty lies, and what makes him the joke that he is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Doesn't hold much merit in a subjective sense, that's for sure. But I'm not talking about Scott Lively anymore, this is the wrong thread for that. That I offered a "different" perspective and took a look at that race through a more critical lens (which in turn branded me as an "extremist" by yourself), does not negate the facts and argument I have presented in this current thread. One or two posters have offered legitimate counter facts as to why they disagree with my views on Baker and why he deserves this compensation, etc. (while I don't agree with them or that they outweigh the bad, still fair game and totally on point with this discussion); you however were not one of those. You are clearly not here to argue facts, but to mock and label other posters. Even if what you claim about my views held a candle, that still does not discredit any of my arguments.
