CRSIII
NES Member
Funny how words can have two meanings.
ETA Or mabey its' funny how the pendulum eventualy swings back to the right?
I dunno, but there is some irony here.
Last edited by a moderator:
-
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
Funny how words can have two meanings.
ETA Or mabey its' funny how the pendulum eventualy swings back to the right?
I dunno, but there is some irony here.
Tim Cahill pro 2A? I doubt it. He will have a nice cushy position in together we did nothings second term for helping him get elected. Maybe he'll oversee the new 1 gun a month program.
I'm going with Baker. Cahil doesn't seem to have changed any of his policies when he changed the letter next to his name. It seems more like it was a ploy to divide the non-Deval voters, whether Democrat, Republican or Independant to give Deval another term. So what if Cahil knows what to say. Obama said the right things at the right time to the right people too, that didn't make him the better candidate by any stretch. Baker has stated some of his plans to reign in government spending...and all are measures I can get behind.
Cahil will have to show me something spectacular in order to sway me in that direction. I just don't see it happening.
Cahil will have to show me something spectacular in order to sway me in that direction. I just don't see it happening.
What do you mean could. Just in this thread people have indicated they would be willing to throw the vote away by voting for him. Cahill does not stand a chance beating either Devil or Baker. But he could earn a position back in the Devils administration by taking away from the Baker voters.
Let's be clear about something: of the people who would vote for Cahill, how many would actually vote for Baker? I don't know that I'd vote for Cahill, but I'd rather shoot myself in the foot than vote for Baker (or Deval).
Then you are voting for Deval and you failed to learn the lesson of the W. versus Gore versus Nader election in 2000 or the George H. W. Bush versus Clinton versus Perot election in 1992. And when Deval stuffs more gun control laws up our butt next year, you can be proud that you stood on principle. Or something like that.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 1, 2010
- Messages
- 230
- Likes
- 25
Deval wins....all these damn fools out there thinking that they're voting for the big ol' independent Cahill who is a lifelong hack...lifelong scumbag...but, now just happens to have a supahhh kewllll "I" behind his name...he's different...he's changed...idiots...this country is done...
Garys
NES Member
Baker. He stands a chance to win and I think that well before the election Cahill will throw in the towel. Patrick is ignoring him and the Democrat Governors Association will be spending money for ads attacking Baker. That should tell you who Patrick considers the real threat.
Patrick still isn't popular, it's just that he's benefiting from Cahill taking more votes from Baker than from him. Cahill should quit now, throw his support to Baker and try to get a job in the administration if Baker wins.
Not that he will, but he should.
Patrick still isn't popular, it's just that he's benefiting from Cahill taking more votes from Baker than from him. Cahill should quit now, throw his support to Baker and try to get a job in the administration if Baker wins.
Not that he will, but he should.
A vote for Cahill is a vote for Deval.
I've been voting in Mass nearly 30 years and my vote has always been wasted, except for Scott Brown. That was a day I'll always remember, but I will continue to vote, wasted or not. I will be voting for Baker in November.
My vote for Weld wasn't wasted either.
Last edited:
I actually liked Perot, but I voted for Bushie because I knew Perot didn't have a chance against " The Machine "
That's pretty much my track record too.
At least I can say I never voted "D".
And I always left it blank when there was no "R" to choose from.
When Baker turns around with the same crap you expect from Deval, it's on your head.
I'll take the chance on getting screwed with Baker versus the guarantee of getting screwed 4 more years with Deval.
By voting for Baker, we endorse the "reasonable restrictions" attitude. If a politician says "reasonable restrictions", and you vote for them, you are voting FOR reasonable restrictions. Nothing Deval can do is as bad as what we do to ourselves by doing that. Hell, by doing that, we implicitly encourage Deval, by moving the median of the debate closer to him.
yanici
NES Member
That's it, in a nutshell.
The thing is, even if Baker can beat Deval, we get four years of no improvement and then two more equally terrible candidates. You can postpone the worst, but if you do it'll never get better.
If we refuse to accept Baker, and make clear our reasons, we might be able to get someone worth voting for next time around.
When we vote for someone like Baker, we aren't just ousting Deval. We're also telling all the aspiring potential future governors that we'll happily roll over and compromise our principles as long as they stay just that little bit better than the other guy. If we keep doing that, we'll never get them to care about our issues, because they'll know we don't care enough to change our votes.
We can win a small victory in the short term by defeating Deval, but we'll pay for it three times over in the long term.
I'd rather not lose the war to win the battle, if you can even call Baker a 'win'[sad2]
(ETA: I'm not advocating voting for Cahill, his attitude on "gentle rape" is about the same as Baker's. I'll probably write in Cekim or something
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
)
Last edited:
The thing is, even if Baker can beat Deval, we get four years of no improvement and then two more equally terrible candidates. You can postpone the worst, but if you do it'll never get better.
If we refuse to accept Baker, and make clear our reasons, we might be able to get someone worth voting for next time around.
When we vote for someone like Baker, we aren't just ousting Deval. We're also telling all the aspiring potential future governors that we'll happily roll over and compromise our principles as long as they stay just that little bit better than the other guy. If we keep doing that, we'll never get them to care about our issues, because they'll know we don't care enough to change our votes.
We can win a small victory in the short term by defeating Deval, but we'll pay for it three times over in the long term.
I'd rather not lose the war to win the battle, if you can even call Baker a 'win'[sad2]
(ETA: I'm not advocating voting for Cahill, his attitude on "gentle rape" is about the same as Baker's. I'll probably write in Cekim or something
![[thumbsup]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/044.gif "Thumbs Up [thumbsup]")
Spot on !!!
The thing is, even if Baker can beat Deval, we get four years of no improvement and then two more equally terrible candidates. You can postpone the worst, but if you do it'll never get better.
If we refuse to accept Baker, and make clear our reasons, we might be able to get someone worth voting for next time around.
When we vote for someone like Baker, we aren't just ousting Deval. We're also telling all the aspiring potential future governors that we'll happily roll over and compromise our principles as long as they stay just that little bit better than the other guy. If we keep doing that, we'll never get them to care about our issues, because they'll know we don't care enough to change our votes.
We can win a small victory in the short term by defeating Deval, but we'll pay for it three times over in the long term.
I'd rather not lose the war to win the battle, if you can even call Baker a 'win'[sad2]
(ETA: I'm not advocating voting for Cahill, his attitude on "gentle rape" is about the same as Baker's. I'll probably write in Cekim or something
So should we not go and vote based on your explaination? It sounds like it.... Patrick, Baker and Cahill are all the same when it comes to 2A with Cahill and Baker being slightly better.... I don't understand your logic at all...
Don't vote for someone who isn't 100% pro gun but let the "anti" keep his job? jeeze
What I'm saying is, whatever you vote for, you encourage. If you vote for someone "slightly less bad", you provide no real motivation for candidates to be better, and you will always have to choose between "anti" and "slightly less anti".
That is the most illogical claptrap I've ever read on this site. Your choices are:
1) Deval, our sworn enemy, who will try to ram more gun control through.
2) Baker, who will likely ignore us, but who won't push for more gun control.
3) Cahill, who can't win and will take votes away from Baker, ensuring that Patrick will win.
A vote for Cahill is a vote for Patrick, plain and simple.
In the 2000 election, lefties said that there was no difference between W and Gore. Gore wasn't pure enough or green enough or left enough. Therefore, they should vote for Nader. As a result, W won. Within a couple years, the lefties realized that there really WAS a difference between W and Gore and that they DEARLY wished that Gore had won instead.
But the folks here on the right can't learn that lesson for some reason. They are fixated on the purity of their Libertarian ideals, and would rather have 4 more years of Patrick.
Wishful thinking that makes about as much sense as cutting off your nose to spite your face.
If Baker loses, the next Republican candidate will figure that Patrick's platform is closer to the populace and he will move leftward, not rightward.
The problem that this is MA. I don't think there is any motivation for better candidates. Our governors have always been historically at least 30% douchebag as long as I've known. The problem is the swing votes in this state are best characterized as "independents that vote for democrats 85% of the time". Doesn't give you a lot to work with.
I fail to see how electing u-haul again is going to get us a GOP (or 3rd party) candidate that is less of a douchebag. If anything, as M1911 states, it will cause them to trend further left. A lot of people don't understand how far gone this state really is. Some will bring up Scott Brown- Brown was elected as the result of a perfect storm, more or less, a set of circumstances I doubt that will ever be repeated in the near future. Brown only beat Jokely by like SEVEN percent, and she was probably the absolute worst, most comically bad candidate ever to run for any political office in this state. Yeah, it's great that he won, but it also should scare the s**t out of anyone who lives here that she wasn't slaughtered in a landslide of epic proportions. It just proved that you can take a piece of dog crap from the local park, put a D on it, and a significant number of people in MA will still vote for it.
Until someone deports/invalidates that portion of the voting block in MA, we're pretty much screwed, forever condemned to garbage candidates for governor. All you get to really choose is how it smells.
-Mike
