-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
Baker or Cahill?
- Thread starter Zappa
- Start date
Argue about this in October, not July. By that time you might be saying this of Baker instead. Either way, I have no intention of wasting my vote.
Ah, yes, the old "there are more important things than guns" tack.
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
Decades of thinking that got us into the predicament we are in today- gun owners as second class citizens.
I will freely admit in this case in reality it will probably be a "wash" between Baker and Cahill in terms of RKBA issues. They will probably just ignore gun issues as much as humanly possible. (pols love to opt out of anything controversial if they can get away with it. )
Define both and go from there. I've seen people and politicians that have called themselves liberal and conservative that have done things that really piss me off. Especially in MA where an R and a D are usually two sides of the same feces-covered coin. I'm sick of the state and federal government raping my paychecks to an exorbitant degree, and I'm also sick of it telling me what to do and how to behave in regards to things that don't really involve anyone else, at nearly every turn. Now by definition I am both "conservative" and "liberal" at the same time. And this, kids, is why political labels are often garbage. The nation has been distracted from real problems it has... which have nothing to do with socialized healthcare, "terrorism", education, gay marriage, or any of that other silly horses**t. Personal liberties and economic freedom are being thrown under the bus and flushed down the toilet in favor of all that garbage, and nobody is paying attention.
The problem is the vast majority of liberals aren't anything approaching actually being "liberal" by the classical definition- they're socialist/statist authoritarians.
Are you a real liberal or one of those types that thinks it's okay to steal lots of money from people using the power of the government and give it to everyone else? A real
liberal would be pissed at that concept, and would believe it to be morally distasteful.
REAL liberals would always support gun rights, unwaveringly. Commies and Socialists hide behind that "liberal" moniker because they want to cover up what they're really about.
-Mike
Last edited:
+1
The man claims to be an Independent, but has spent his entire life as a liberal? Either he's spent his life masquerading as a liberal but is really an Independent, or the Independent act is the masquerade.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,135
- Likes
- 1,600
ding!
amb
NES Member
Ah, yes, the old "there are more important things than guns" tack.
I'm a big fan of the whole Bill of Rights, and basic civil liberties all reinforce each other to a great extent.
I do think the right to self-defense and to keep and bear arms is far more under attack than the rest right now, though, so that's what I'm stressing about. (Attacks on freedom of speech are on the upswing big-time, though.) You could also argue that the second amendment is the one that protects the rest.
You don't see many of those anymore, though. Mostly they call themselves libertarians, but good luck finding one or getting the inertia together to create a serious candidacy. (Not saying it's impossible, though, just needs a lot of work and maybe a big of luck.) As you say, personal liberties and economic freedom are being thrown under the bus by both major parties, but I don't know which is going to be easier, turning one of them around or getting a viable third party going.
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2009
- Messages
- 36,390
- Likes
- 55,139
Agreed, but that's a loooong way for him to climb back.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 11,816
- Likes
- 12,140
If people vote for Cahill over Baker the end result will be Deval back in office, and Cahill with a big fat Obama cabinet job for helping Deval win. For those of us that are nieve and pretty much freaking blind......this is and was the plan all along. Cahill did not just flip to being "independent" all of the sudden for this race. Wake up and smell the coffee.
No matter what Cahill says....how could anyone vote for a guy who is the responsible party when the state is Bankrupt. He is the treasurer is he not? What's his platform? Bankruptcy. How he can even run is beyond me.....
Baker may not be the best guy.....but if you want Deval again...vote for Cahill.
Last edited:
Not crazy about Baker, but Cahill is a life long Dem who only seems to have found out his ex party is on the wrong side of issues. How convenient to discover this only now that Dems have the most venerable governor in years. I get the feeling he is either a lying opportunism or stooge for the Dems trying to siphon off votes from the republicans so that weasel Patrick can stay in office.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,824
That pretty much makes the decision easy. And frankly, I see cahill taking some of Patricks numbers before this is all said and done.
1) Think back to our recent history. Most of the time, our RINO governors may not have gone out of their way to help us, but they (usually) didn't actively try to hurt us. Non-resident licenses from EOPS were shall issue. The governor didn't actively shill and twist arms to promote gun control legislation. Now consider the Patrick administration -- he's pushing hard for 1 gun a month, and non-res licenses are now restricted.
2) Cahill can't win. Look at the polls. Patrick 41, Baker 34, Cahill 16 and dropping.
We've been down this road before with Mihos. Mihos took votes away from Muffy. Cahill is just taking votes away from Baker and ensuring that Patrick gets a second term.
Deval's camp probably paid Cahill to run and promised him another $150,000+ position for 4 years once he steals enough Baker votes to get that sheep herder Deval back in.
Someone from Cahill's campaign just registered so I am sure we are going to hear how he's no longer a big government, big spending, liberty taking liberal anymore.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
If you vote for Cahill you deserve what you get.
IIRC, GCA 98' (chapter 180) was signed into law by republican (RINO) Paul Celucci and then the next RINO governor (Romney) didn't raise a finger to change it.
Basically, it doesn't matter one iota who we vote for, we're still screwed.
[sad2]
Goodness. I don't know why I can't explain this to folks.
Did Romney and Cellucci shill for gun control on Beacon Hill? No. Did they work to stop it? No. Is Patrick shilling for gun control on Beacon Hill? Yes. He is twisting arms. Hard. Can you see the difference?
There is a difference between someone who is indifferent to our plight versus our sworn enemies.
The last time around, we had a choice between not great and awful. And some folks said "not great" isn't good enough, so there isn't a difference. Well, there is, and you're seeing it now every day on Beacon Hill as Patrick twists arms to pass one gun a month.
"Not great" isn't good, but it is one heck of a lot better than "awful."
Dummicrats learned this lesson back in the 2000 Presidential Election. The lefties said "Al Gore is no different than W., so keep to your principles and vote for Nader." Just enough of the idiots did just that so W. won. If they'd voted for Gore instead, he would have won. Just a few years later, they'd learned their lesson, as they found out that W. really WAS different than Gore.
I simply can not understand why folks on the right can't learn from their lesson. Back in our last Governor's race, libertarian types said Healey was no different than Patrick, so vote for Mihos. Well, Patrick is one heck of a lot different than Healey. While Healey probably wouldn't be actively campaigning against gun control, she wouldn't be pushing for it either. But if Patrick wasn't pushing for his one-gun-a-month bill, the leadership on Beacon Hill would have let it die -- the last thing they want to do is have to vote up or down on a controversial bill.
You have several choices in this election:
1) Vote for Patrick, our sworn enemy, who will push hard for more gun control, through legislation, regulation, and litigation.
2) Vote for Baker, who will likely ignore us, but won't push for more gun control.
3) Vote for Cahill, who has no chance, ensuring that Patrick wins.
Why is that a hard choice? Your choices are 1) awful, 2) not great, and 3) same as 1.
If I remember correctly though it wouldn't have made a difference in that case, because Muffy fell far short on her own, even if you had added Mihos' votes into the total between the two Uhaul still would have won.
Cahill is way more of a threat than Mihos ever was, though, as he is widely perceived as being at least quasi legitimate, which means some people are doing to dump their vote on him.... hopefully it will not be enough to allow uhaul to scrape into office again........ It could be a dirty trick indeed.
-Mike
Yes, the difference between Muffy and Patrick was larger than the votes that Mihos received. But Mihos spent the entire election attacking Muffy. His goal was to destroy her campaign. He succeeded. Would Muffy have won if Mihos hadn't been in the race? Not likely, Patrick is the better politician. But she would have had a shot.
Saying Cahill is a more viable candidate than Mihos is damning him with faint praise. Based on the polls, Cahill simply can't win. But he will get more votes than Mihos did, and those will be anti-Patrick votes -- i.e., votes that Baker likely would have gotten.
If I were in MA I would be voting for Baker, I'm not a huge fan, but he is better than the alternatives, but to tell the truth I'd be voting for Baker to support Richard Tisei, his running mate. I have known Richard since his days as a Selectman in Wakefield, then as a Rep and now Senator.
He has my support, and I would ask you to support him too.
He has my support, and I would ask you to support him too.
i had this same discussion with my mother the other night. i told her i would reluctantly be voting for baker. otherwise deval gets in. that and i dont trust cahill. she was at some event the other night and baker was there. he said he will be marching in the norwood parade on sunday.
He's an old time Quincy pol. His priority is whatever is good for his family and supporters (i.e., well-paying state jobs and contracts). Everything else is secondary to that.
I'll guess I'll wait until late on election day and see which one is closer to defeating the Devil before I decide.
Not a lot of substance from what I saw. It was really him just talking about being so far behind and why he took so long to respond to the attack ads from the Republican Governors' Association. The host asked him about his poll numbers, specifically him being at 16% and even with the 9% undecided on the polls, he'd still be 10 points back of Baker. He stated that he's in it for the long haul and will not quit. They showed his ad as well
Last edited by a moderator:
kevin9
NES Member
LOL. Like that worked real well for Cuckoo-ChristySomeone from Cahill's campaign just registered so I am sure we are going to hear how he's no longer a big government, big spending, liberty taking liberal anymore.
CRSIII
NES Member
![[angry]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/008.gif "Angry [angry]")
ICan anyone give me a good reason why I should vote for Baker instead of Cahill?
Nope. Both are politicians, which only means you can trust them about as far as you can throw them. Baker's deficiencies aside, Cahill is a spoiler. He knows he isn't going to win this thing. He's a "former" Democrat, which means he's still a Democrat but figures he's got a shot at appealing to the few centrists & conservatives left in this state...so, he's running as an Indy. I'd be inclined to look more closely at him for his 2A beliefs, but I think he's going to help Devil Pudtrick win reelection and his 2A beliefs mean nothing if that happens.
Vote how you like. I doubt it will matter.
