Hey, there! Log in / Register
In first debate in governor's race, Gonzalez accuses Baker of being a Republican
By adamg on Wed, 10/10/2018 - 4:15pm
WGBH reports on last night's debate between incumbent Charlie Baker and challenger Jay Gonzalez.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Gonzales attacked Baker's
But not a peep about Maura Healey playing deaf, dumb, and blind to the scandal too?
Back in high school
many moons ago and many miles away, a leftie friend of mine accused me of being a conservative.
She thought she'd landed a devastating blow, one that would make me question the very foundations of my thinking, lay me bare and in pieces so that what was picked up afterward could be molded into a proper, liberal, mindset.
I think she might have been genuinely surprised when I said, "Yes...and?"
Ever since then, and especially so now, I've come to the conclusion that many liberals really are sheltered creatures, unable to understand that their opinions are not synonymous with absolute truth, but merely one among many sets of opinions. Each of which has its ups and its downs if put into practice.
I can even understand how they might maintain that opinion in the face of contrary evidence: they train themselves to dismiss evidence as propaganda and counterarguments as somebody else's astroturf. Oh, I accuse people all the time of parrotting talking points, of course. But that's not the only thing I do. Every once in a while, mostly when I'm procrastinating on household chores or somesuch, I'll bang out a whole spiel.
I hardly ever see that with committed leftists. They accuse, they insult, they assert, they all but put their fingers in their ears and chant, but they don't try to make a convincing argument. I really think they've let that ability atrophy. It's not necessarily their fault, of course. If they're young and never been taught to make convincing intellectual arguments, I don't expect them to will themselves to do it from nothing. Intellectual rigor isn't hard-wired; it's a learned behavior and it's always an act of will, even among professional practitioners. You are the easiest person for yourself to fool, after all.
So yeah: Baker's a Republican. That's an objective fact, not an insult.
Tall Devall isn't going
Tall Devall isn't going nowhere.
If he runs for president he
If he runs for president he might leave early. I can see a scenario where he primaries Trump or even runs as a third party candidate in 2020.
He could, but he won't make much headway
In a sound byte: he's too open-borders for Republicans, and not open-border enough for Democrats.
In a paragraph: while he's more or less competent, the presidency isn't just about being a good manager. There's a large amount of bully-pulpit advocacy that we expect from the man at the top. Kennedy and FDR and Reagan and Obama were praised for their advocacy as much as their successes in governing, and in the case of all four it excused some of their less graceful moments in office. Governors can do that too, and provided they don't fall on their face in running state government, that can be and often is forgiven by people who care about the roads being in good repair more than they care about politics. Baker has chosen not to advocate for principles. That's respectable in a governor. But it leaves him a blank slate on the national stage. He'll be tarred as a girlie-man-Massachusetts-liberal by the tea party wing of the GOP and he'll be tarred as an uncaring 1 percenter by the left wing of the Dems. And all he'll have to defend himself with is the unsexy stuff. If Baker wants a crack at the White House, he'd do well to run for Congress or the Senate after his time on Beacon Hill wraps up. Senators and representatives have more leeway to be unabashed advocates.
He is a RINO.https://www
He is a RINO.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/there_are_rinos_but_nev...
No
He's an example of what the Republican party was when those old farts around here were young. People who actually cared about governance, not destruction of such "difficult" US institutions like, oh, the constitution, rule of law, science and data, etc.
In other words, they were patriotic, not destructive greedy trolls with a veneer of flag and bible waved about like their privates.
Hehe, that's funny
Something like half the Democratic members of congress and nearly all of the Democrat-aligned media spent the last half of September and the first week of October haranguing us to abandon silly notions like burden of proof and presumption of innocence in the absence of evidence of guilt.
But don't let that fool you!
While it looks like the lefties are more than willing to kangaroo court their way back to power, that is a but a clever ruse! Perpetrated by none other than the Vast RightWing Conspiracy!
That's right! It's the Vast RightWing Conspiracy that's out to shred the Constitution, steal your daughters, and turn your frogs gay!
Someone who speaks French better than I do could probably set that to the tune of the Marseillaise and end up with a ribbiting piece of music. Throw a rabbit and cricket in there and you've covered your bases with just about all of the hopping critters.
I would never accuse you of being a conservative
Like most who claim that word these days, you have no freaking clue what it means.
You are clearly a radical nihilist.
Baker is a Conservative.
That's the new buzzword among uhub socialists
But I'll humor you. After all, if I don't, who will?
How am I any kind of nihilist? Let alone a radical one?
And just for fun, please phrase your answer in the form of a haiku.
Limerick for you
A fascist man Roman posts screeds
Featuring vast and vacuous hypocrisy
His belief in greed
Underscores his bullying deeds
In support of destruction of democracy
C+ for effort
but your meter sucks.
*Yawn*
According to a recent Supreme Court Justice vetting process, we apparently can't go back to high school to bring up real/perceived events so this is already going off track, but, please, go on...
I mean, this is purely subjective without knowing at all what she said. Looking back to the Biden/Ryan Vice Presidential debate, it's commonly understood that Biden mopped the floor with Ryan with facts and experience, but according to conservative outlets, Ryan somehow "won the debate" because he rambled on and on. Personally, I think this is how many Conservatives think debates are "won"--just keep talking until the other side walks away out of boredom and then claim victory.
I combined all that because you used two paragraphs to basically say the same thing:
A) You think (somehow) lefties/liberals are more closed-minded than conservatives--despite by very definition it being far and wide the opposite.
B) Somehow your "intellectual rigor" allows you to carry such a superior attitude.
As I told a don't-call-me-a-conservative! libertarian friend of mine recently, if you want to make a strong argument about why you shouldn't be labeled conservative you *just might* want to make more of a case about why your debating skills are fair and open-minded and spend less time simply bashing the other side as not up to your (perceived) intellectual ability. But I guess that's the typical Dan "Don't-call-me-a-conservative!" Rea school of thought amongst local conservatives... but don't call them that!
Wha?
1. Biden mugged and smirked and yelled and screamed his way to being declared the winner by the media.
2. You lost me at the Kavanaugh reference. I know it's confusing to you, but we're not all the same identical person.
3. You just made my point for me. If by definition I'm closed minded, then what the hell do you need to listen to me for?
Every Thing Roman Said But...
...Change liberals to conservative, and lefty to righty. The argument is always the same we just swap out one title for another.
Yes and no
Yes in that you can certainly say that.
No in that it's a cheap shot that ignores the implication of what I wrote after my high school anecdote.
I'll have a serious conversation with anyone if...and it's a big if these days...they promise to argue against my ideas, not just throw around insults like rethuglicans, republikkkan, and my own personal favorite: white male. Some people I know well personally will occasionally be willing to do that. Randos on the internet and many "mainstream" media personalities and Democrat politicians don't strike me as the type who would.
Charlie Baker supports the
Charlie Baker supports the notoriously anti-LGBTQIA+ state rep Jim Lyons.
Did you run out of keyboard
Did you run out of keyboard
Mind repeating that?
Mind repeating that?
It was an attempt at comedy
by way of using an actual 'frog' emoji.
Did you run out of keyboard
I'm edumacated enough to know what most of those letters mean, but wtf is the I, A, and + for? How about some emojis in there too?
Like a gay frog maybe?
Intersex
Intersex
Asexual
+ is for things on the spectrum of sexuality that do not have agreed upon terms at this time.
Did you run out of Internet?
Maybe this will help
Ah Bon.
n/t
A one party state
is a good thing?
Depends on the party.
If you agree with the party agenda then yes it is a good thing. You get to see that agenda implimented.
The argument that a person should vote for the other party just to prevent a "one party state" always comes across as a poor one. Vote for the candidate who advances issues you care about.
Regardless of party
A single party dominating a political system leads to corruption. The lack of accountability degrades democracy and responsible government. Just look at any country where a single party has dominated government.
That one supports the dominant party is another issue. The "other party" in a two (or more) party system, if the system is truly democratic, changes its message to appeal to voters. The opposition seizes more and more on the discontent of the voters until they become the governing party. The dominant party feels the threat of losing power, so they change their ways to win voters back. That's how democracy works.
How about our one party
How about our one party country? You must be pretty unhappy at the federal level and voting democratic party for Senate and house, since now we are a one party country.
Charlie Baker has been among
Charlie Baker has been among the only recipients of anything good to come out of this clown president. Compared to Trump, Baker looks like a 60s activist. It shields Baker from the reality that he's a tall guy with a nice smile who hasn't really done anything substantive as governor.
Well, give Baker credit, he
Well, give Baker credit, he has done some things. He cancelled late night T service, shrunk the service dates for the cape cod train, delayed by years the green line extension, delayed by decades the commuter rail station in Allston, cancelled the DMU train plans, increased subway fares (while keeping tolls and gas tax the same and promising to raise fares again, relaxed environmental regulations, taxed solar panel homeowners, and given $100 million+ to beg failing GE to move into one of the hottest real estate markets (Seaport) in the country. Oh, and he's tall and after lots of polling will give you a last minute position on something.
hasn't done anything substantive?
Reduced the opioid epidemic where other states are still climbing.
Decisive action on climate change - both carbon reduction and preparing communities for changes.