Hey, there! Log in / Register
Debate thoughts
By adamg on Tue, 10/07/2014 - 7:59pm
If you watched tonight's debate, what did you think?
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
Coakley
did better than expected. Scott Lively should write for the Herald. McCormick looked like a stuffy funeral home director, Falchuk appeared to act like a frustrated drama teacher and Charlie just looked tall.
Falchuk and McCormick
struck me as sharper and brighter than the two major-party candidates. Scott Lively was just an embarrassment whom the other 4 tried their best to ignore. I don't understand how he even got on the ballot.
Sadly, he found enough
Sadly, he found enough stooges and ignorant uniformed people to sign him up to be on there.
Perish the thought that
Perish the thought that voters actually be able to field candidates of diverse viewpoints should they choose in free democratic elections.
It would be much better if we just had a single party with a single candidate with the correct viewpoints. Elections would be so much less of a bother if they were mere procedural formalities to test the loyalty of the subjects to the ruling party.
Scott Lively co-authored a
Scott Lively co-authored a book titled "The Pink Swastika" in which he stated "homosexuals are the true inventors of Nazism and the guiding force behind many Nazi atrocities."
This is not about stifling diverse viewpoints - your straw man has no legs especially where people here are actually praising Falchuk and McCormick for their contributions This is about not giving a bigot like Lively a platform disguised as a legitimate campaign for office.
He got the signatures
He deserves to be on the ballot. Plain and simple.
There are people that gripe about the "two party" system, kvetch when, say, the Green or Libertarian candidates for President are not allowed to the big debates. This is the opposite end. In recent times, crazy candidates who got on the ballot get to attend the gubernatorial debates in Massachusetts.
I have to admit, I didn't see the debate, and I am not afraid to admit that even though I haven't made up my mind on this race, Lively won't be getting my vote. Still, there he is, being all crazy and shit.
Not denying he qualified for
Not denying he qualified for the ballot. Just saying the man is a bigot and not just a candidate bringing a different set of ideas to the table, as opposed to a Falchuk or McCormick.
"I am sort of a Winston Churchill type of figure"
Not just a bigot, the man is just plum nuts.
http://dailyfreepress.com/2014/10/02/independent-candidate-scott-lively-...
With Lively in the race that's all anyone talks about.
Lively makes Baker look like a centrist. He isn't really centrist, he's pretending to be and it's appears to be working. He refuses to discuss any of the issues he's flip-flopped on from right to center. But contrary to what we see on the campaign trail-- Happy Baker- Angry Baker came out to play during the debate. He's clearly annoyed with everyone in the room.
Baker wants to give out tax cuts. mostly to the rich and corporations. But 20 years since Reagan. we've learned trickle-down economics does not work. And, in order to pay for the tax cuts, he'll have to cut services that affect the middle class and poor. Republicans tend to go after the education budget
He will not work to keep Umass affordable. At least that''s what he told a student at Suffolk.
He's running on welfare reform, which amounts to about 1% of the budget and which was reformed in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. He's playing the welfare queen card, and that disgusts me.
His earned sick time plan excludes all business with less than 50 employees, so about 800,000 people. It appears he wanted to have an earned sick time plan, so it wasn't a liability, but doesn't really support the measure. The original version is on the ballot, Question 4, Earned Paid Sick Time. Maybe Baker intends to water it down if it passes.
He think the public should reimburse businesses who pay minimum wage for the minimum wage increases the state passed in July, with tax credits. Think of it as socialized labor costs, like WalMart.
Baker's jobs plan is tax credits for small business and enterprise zones in gateway cities. These are expensive and what Bruce Bartlett describes as a bipartisan failure.
Coakley cleared the record on Baker super Pac attack ad and even got Charlie to equivocate but not disavow the ad.
I'm disappointed in press coverage.
So...
He "told a Suffolk student" that he wouldn't keep UMass affordable? Do you have a citation for this?
What will you do as governor to make college more affordable?
What will you do as governor to make college more affordable in Massachusetts?
We have a public university system. For the last two years the state has budgeted enough to keep tuition steady without an increase. Baker could have ofereed this, too. He did not.
My opinion is that if the state is going to fund a public university system, we should make it affordable for every kids who's qualified to attend.
Still looking for
Where he said he would not keep UMass affordable. I think he gave a few ways to do just that. Develop a 3 year degree program (cutting tuition paid for a degree by 25%), taking advantage of online classes (which are cheaper), implementing a Northeastern-style coop program (students get paid for their work).
And PS- I guess it's time for you to start listening.
http://continuinged.uml.edu/online/
Welcome to online learning at UMass Lowell! We offer one of the largest selections of online credit courses in New England. Browse our huge selection of accredited University courses, certificates, and degree programs at both undergraduate and graduate levels.
Despite my comments here
People are not obsessed with Lively. Or Falchuk or McCormick. Trust me, the undecided are looking at Coakley and Baker.
Scott Liveone is the only true
Republican on the ballot.
He's a candidate bringing a different set of ideas to the table
The fact that those ideas are out of line with 95% of the electorate (meaning about 5% of the electorate are in line with him but won't vote for him) means nothing. Who gets to decide that Lively gets shut out while Falchuk and/or McCormick get to attend the debates? Base it on chance of getting elected, and you've got Coakley and Baker and no one to push things they want to ignore.
Either we suck it up with the two party system or treat everyone on the ballot the same.
Another good reason for lunatics on the ballot
Lively has now opened his mouth and removed all doubt that he is a lunatic bigot fool.
I wonder if his campaign money will be garnished to pay his outstanding legal judgements: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A121481.htm
The original comment was
The original comment was about people who signed Lively's nomination papers to get him on the ballot. No one is disputing that he got on the ballot. I wish people had not signed to give this guy a platform. But he's there now as I said before, yes.
I'm starting from the anon
That's where the issue for me started. I won't debate the innate batshittedness of Lively, but I will say that since he has gotten on the ballot, he should be in the debates. The media can ignore him aside from mentioning that his name will appear, like they did with Richard Heos in the Senate Special Election last year (and I somehow think that Heos might be crazier than Lively.)
For me, him getting on the ballot means he should get the same treatment every other third party candidate should get. That there were people crazy enough to get him on the ballot. I just thought about this for a second. I was going to say that you could probably get the right number to sign a petition for all sorts of weird things, but then I remembered that there are people- myself included- who will sign these sheets just because the guy asks, regardless of policy or beliefs.
Hey, I am not advocating
for anyone to be shut out. Is somebody advocating this?
He is more than welcome to show the world how nutty he is - makes great theater.
Surprised he's eligible
He's got warrants out on him in Oregon for skipping out on big money court judgements.
The guy is a criminal con-man and a fugitive.
Oh come on
Nobody's objecting to diversity of candidates; they are expressing surprise that there are enough people who think Scott Lively is reasonable, that he made it onto the ballot.
While liberals find him
While liberals find him bizarre, he has more than a few positions that people on the right support.
It shouldn't be surprising he found enough support for sigs. That's only 10k.
Yes..
Clearly conservatives are "bizarre" and liberals aren't. How could one be for paying less in taxes, be religious, and want a smaller government.
Only normal people believe in paying more taxes for a bigger government and aren't religious.
Big endless wars
Oh yes, that means less taxes and a smaller government budget.
Dream on.
Reality has a liberal bias?
Why yes, I would agree that someone has some really bizarre views if they don't believe in all of us chipping in to help our less fortunate neighbors, in everyone having access to basic needs, and in everyone having the right to make their own religious and medical choices.
How could one be for paying
Would be nice if that was what people calling themselves "conservative" actually did stand for.
What current "conservative" leadership seems to stand for is a humongous military justified by endless quagmire wars, high taxes to support those wars (and gutting of money that goes to states and communities), infliction of their flavor of Christianity into both public places and the most intimate recesses of the lives of citizens, and thoroughly militarized big government police forces to make sure we all stand and pray when told to, but don't smoke weed or love whomever we choose.
Bit of a disconnect there, don't you think? Plenty of liberals would like to see an end to that sort of big government, high taxes, and be allowed to practice religion as they see fit, too.
Modern California proves
Modern California proves otherwise.
Gross generalization
So it's ok to make gross generalizations?
I haven't heard Charlie Baker preaching christianity, clamoring for war, complaining about gay marriage, or pushing public prayer. Of course, it's totally fine to lump anyone who doesn't agree with you in one big category.
Nice try
Notice the word "leadership"?
If you are having problems with the actual behavior of people who claim to be conservative leaders, you need to go after them, not me.
Swirly is right
I'd add to that that many liberals are opposed to the sorts of tax breaks and other benefits both parties dole out to select corporations. Small Government needs to not be helping your corporate friends at the expense of tax payers and citizens in general. When regulations are written by the people being regulated, that's a problem -- one the GOP is silent on and sometimes actively promotes.
Lively got the Heralds
Lively got the Heralds subscription list and had no problem finding the signatures among them.
Bad set design!
Bad set design!... CBS Boston could tap the local architecture schools, design schools, art schools.
My Thoughts
- You can ask how a lovely day it is outside and Scott Lively (I) would say its all a Marxist ploy or something, just annoying to hear but did have a good case against a casino in Springfield.
- I have meet Jeff McCormick (I) quite allot and he is a nice guys with some good ideas, but I don't know what happen to him today at the beginning his voice went a little up and I wasn't feeling his hair style.
- Evan Falchuk (UI) did better then I thought he would
- Charlie Baker (R) had that cool calm approach, but when he talked at times he would take pauses, I thought it was a stalling tactic to get organize his thought, what do others think?
- Martha Coakley (D) was not brought down tonight, thats all I say about that.
- ...and one more note: I'm glad they brought up the 5% roll back from 2003
I'm glad I watched the debate
I'm glad I watched the debate tonight. I was worried I might find something I didn't like about Falchuck. Thankfully that guy is cooler than ever!
I've met Baker. He insulted me to my face which caught me off guard since I was expecting to meet the nice Mr Baker that everyone sees on t.v. Listening to Lively is no different than listening to my mother when she jumps on her tea box at family gatherings. Seriously though, a world with only one type of person would be a really boring place. I'm glad to see the differences between the candidates emerging.
Any details?
Can you tell us what happened?
I mean, maybe you deserved it. Really.
Please...
I love these first-person stories. Well, I met Coakley and she punched me right in the face. Lively threw holy water on me when I met him. Falchuk kicked me right in the shins, and McCormick told me I was dumber than a box of rocks. Clearly all the candidates are just mean people.
Ha Ha
And Barney Frank told someone having a conversation with her was like having a conversation with the dining room table.
Oh wait, that really did happen. And BTW the Larouchite deserved it.
I had a few beers with Dapper
I had a few beers with Dapper now and again , he always behaved....
My fav part.
When Baker and Coakley were bickering about who cares more about children and Lively reminded them they both support abortion.
Zzzzzzzzzz.
Supporting families being able to make their own family-planning choices is a great way to support children.
Every child a wanted child.
Missing some words, there
They both support abortion rights.
Grow up, please.
Falchuk
I was very impressed with Evan Falchuk. He spoke clearly, with passion, and I agreed with about 95% of what he said.
EDIT: By the way, how many picked up on who was asking the 5% tax question? I mean, Jon Keller was the moderator, but did you notice who he said was asking the question, then did you put two and two together?
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Just ol' Barbara from the
Just ol' Barbara from the North Shore, whose last name is probably Anderson.
Coakley: Best debate
Coakley: Best debate performance I've seen her give that I can remember. Sharp and on point. I'm a supporter of hers but she exceeded my expectations. I'd like a stronger answer on the health connector, though.
Baker: Started off slowly but finished strong. He certainly didn't do anything to really hurt himself. I think his one possibly significant error was the "board set my salary" bit. Even if true, not a good answer.
Falchuk: Has some good ideas but too much on the "pox on both houses" line. But I understand what his vision is at least.
McCormick: Not sure why he's in this race. Smart guy but what's the rationale for his candidacy? Opposite of Falchuk there.
Lively: Embarrassing.
My biggest reason to be anti-Coakly
When so much of the Mass legislature has been convicted, CONVICTED, of corruption, why didn't she catch a single one of them? Or if Federal crimes are easier to prosecute, was she even involved? Where the heck was she?
And now she seems to be following the same script with Partners. Not only should she oppose the merger, but she should be loudly trumpeting the need for Partners to make their pricing public. (And if she really believes anti-trust law won't let her oppose the merger, then publicizing prices would be a good counter-weight).
My concern is that she is tightly in bed with the crooks in the Statehouse. Baker may not be wonderful, but at least he'll have a check & balance.
Falchuck has a point.
Still don't know how anyone
Still don't know how anyone can support Coakley after Fells Acres and even though he had every right to be there, Lively's nonsense will be the most on the minds of young people and the "I get all my news from the Daily Show" crowd's minds for mockery purposes, resulting in real issues being lost.
Lively's issues aren't
lost on those cranky conservatives that get their news from WND and the Herald.
You could do far worse
The Daily Show is actually one of the better news sources out there. While the content is hand picked, to be certain, it is also heavily analyzed.
Furthermore, those who watch the Daily Show and Colbert Report are among the best informed people around:
So, the "people who get all their news from the Daily Show" are actually a scant few, as Daily Show viewers are very well informed.
More here: http://www.journalism.org/2008/05/08/journalism-satire-or-just-laughs-th...
Indeed I imagine it's easy to
Indeed I imagine it's easy to be informed on issues when the funnyman tells you how to think and what jokes to make.
In fact, adding a vacant stare and pause for laughter and an applause sign to classrooms might increase test scores too
Listen, I don't know how anyone can say they are informed from just watching a satire program that has time and time again had to make a disclaimer that they aren't a news program, that selects news topics that appeal to professional comedy writers to condense and make material from, that perpetuates the false image that their viewers aree more informed than the stereotype formed subconsciously from the show - that 90% of Americans are uninformed who only watch Fox News (and only read the Herald as is brought out time and time again).
All this does is breed cynicism rather than encouraging thought on the issues and forming opinions based on objective fact. May as well just get your news from political cartoons opposite of your views, it makes hot topics easily digestible the same way.
Strawman
If you bothered to read the link, you'd find that there are likely very few people who get all their info from that show.
Otherwise, how do YOU explain how Daily Show viewers are HIGHLY INFORMED?
You can't - you're just doubling down on your initial strawman, and not introducing any additional facts and information to the discussion.
Putting a punkinhead on top of a strawman doesn't change its nature.
Say "strawman" again and
Say "strawman" again some more and maybe someone will applaud you on your intellectual college debate terminology in mere internet comments. Or is that a "tone argument?" I don't know, I'm not a character on Portlandia.
Notice in my original post I was referring to people who do inf act get all their news and form their opinions solely from the Daily Show and act self righteous about it, not people who take in information from multiple sources.
The point I was trying to make is that some people are so cynical that a political debate has become practice in looking for things to mock rather than learning about the positions of candidates and Lively is embarrassing.
Notice that in his point he
Notice that in his point he gives you evidence showing that those people don't exist.
I applaud
I applaud your college debate terminology (honestly). That is a perfect example of a strawman.
Still don't know how anyone
Well, in my case it's because there are myriad differences between the Democratic and Republican party platforms and Coakley and Baker are likely to be very different leaders as a result.
*Were* I to pick a single issue to disqualify Coakley for it'd be her pitiful campaign against Scott Brown. But I am a pragmatist and will select the viable candidate most likely to lead consistently with my values, that's her.
My thoughts are..
...we're going to have an idiot for governor. Again.
You whippersnappers and your TVist views...
You don't wanna hear from anyone who LISTENED to the debates on NPR? Huh? Huh? #getoffamylawn
that cocoon
I was laughing too hard to hear anything that was said after 'Cocoon of Horror'
Shouldn't Keller
stick to theater or book reviews? He's the reason people have to keep fresh batteries in the remote.
I Think Keller Was Fine
We're all entitled to our opinions, of course, and if you don't like him, so be it. I thought he handled things fairly. Did you hear specific instances of bias? I didn't. And that's what I want most from a moderator, that he or she treat every candidate fairly.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Not charging him
with bias but boredom. He strikes me as the uptight French Maitre d, whiney, snotty and more suited as a book or movie critic.