Governor Charlie Baker vs Scott Lively

Governor Charlie Baker vs Scott Lively. Who would you vote for?

  • Governor Charlie Baker

    Votes: 3 2.1%

  • Scott Lively

    Votes: 102 70.3%

  • Neither

    Votes: 40 27.6%
  • Total voters
    145
Permanent Waves said:
I am a delegate as well. Was one for the last covention too. I have a couple observations - neither are good.

Convention voting - It's not a private vote, its a voice vote to your State committee person. Everyone flocks to the Committee person and you hear what everyone else votes. You should have seen the looks and heard the groans that were given if someone said "Fisher", particularly since they were prepared to check off "Baker" on their tally sheet. Was like you were insulting the entire group. And then with the behind the curtain BS that went on to keep Fisher off the stage was absolutely disgusting.

I totally agree with thousm's post #48. If you say "Lively", you had better be prepared for whatever crap will be slung your way. You will also continue to get crapped on later at RTC meetings about it, and be labeled as "those people" that didn't support the Baker coronation.

But here's the thing, it doesn't freaking matter. There is no way that MAGOP will allow Lively on that stage... no way. Baker needs to appear infallible, untouchable to the GOP masses. Any opposition would not be tolerated. Just like the formal session votes that occur at the Statehouse, nothing is allowed without the permission of House Speaker or Senate President.

Can you vote to "Abstain"? To me, that would almost be worse than voting "Lively". "Abstain" is total rejection of the whole thing.
Click to expand...
I have heard Lively was able to put up the $25,000 to speak at the convention. And he believes he will take 20 percent of the delegates. I think this is overly optimistic but if Lively is able to speak there my be a small riot on the convention floor. And if he makes the 15 percent threshold Lively and anyone who voted for him will need police protection to get out of the building. Could be the most entertaining Mass GOP Convention ever.
 
Freddy B said:
I am not convinced Maura would defeat Baker if she ran. Recall the '98 election when the Democratic establishment in this state turned on Scott Harshbarger because he was too far left even for them. I think Bob DeLeo has an arrangement with Baker both are comfortable with, and would quietly support him vs Healey, the way Finneran supported Celluci by not working for Harshbarger (whom he referred to as the "Looney Left").
Click to expand...

Wonder what that might be ?
"I'll tap you on the shoulder. " ?
 
This is an email I sent out to my Republican friends. Did not make the Baker supporters happy. The liberal wing of the Republican party in this state believes gun owner will always vote for them. They can always say if nothing else their not Democrats. I have already let it be known I am not voting for baker.

Governor Charlie Baker and firearms owners. He has lost their support.

As you all know I am a firearms enthusiast and have been constantly talking to other firearms owners about the Governors race. I rarely find anyone who plans on voting for Charlie Baker. Most did the first time but almost to the man will never vote for him again. The vast majority of Massachusetts gun owners think the Governor has done nothing for them. There are about 300.000 firearms owners who will stay home and not vote. This is not good for Baker or the rest of the Republican ticket.
As radioactive as Scott Lively is most say if had the chance they would vote for him. I think it is more of a vote against Baker than for Lively.

On Northeast Shooters I posted. "Governor Charlie Baker vs Scott Lively". No surprise the response was overwhelmingly anti Charlie Baker. See the poll.
Governor Charlie Baker vs Scott Lively

On my Facebook page I posted "Who are you supporting for Massachusetts Governor? Charles D. Baker or Scott Lively?" Over 500 responses and counting. Many are average activist Republicans. They ether hated Baker or hated Lively.


View: https://www.facebook.com/rightwing.travis/posts/2113274522023695?comment_id=2156589097692237&notif_id=1524511881738972&notif_t=feed_comment&ref=notif


I have heard Lively was able to put up the $25,000 to speak at the convention. And he believes he will take 20 percent of the delegates. I think this is overly optimistic but if Lively is able to speak there and if Lively makes the 15 percent threshold it may be in large part to the recent anti gun stunt our AG enacted under his tenure and the Governor looking like he was going along with it.

Should be a unusualy entertaining Mass GOP Convention. See you there.
 
Last edited:
Crying Baker got the message today!

Charlie Baker gets endorsement but will face primary challenge - The Boston Globe

Lively’s vote was a major victory for a small but active ultraconservative wing of the state GOP, which expressed anger over Baker’s refusal to support President Trump, liberal social policies, and close working relationship with Beacon Hill Democrats.

“The most popular governor in the country and he faces a primary,’’ said Mary Lou Daxland, president of the conservative Massachusetts Republican Assembly and one of the organizers opposing Baker. “The delegates have spoken.”
Click to expand...

Lively’s show of support followed an impassioned speech that struck strong pro-Trump, social conservative, and pro-gun themes.

“The Baker people and the RINOs [Republicans in name only] in this room, they tell all the rest of us that a conservative can’t win in Massachusetts. You know why they say that? They say that because they don’t believe in real conservatism,” Lively said.

In his speech to the delegates, Baker, who often takes pride in his working relationship with Democratic leaders, set an unusually strong partisan tone, giving a glimpse of the themes he will probably be hitting for the fall election.

Never mentioning Lively, Baker boasted that he brought fiscal discipline to Beacon Hill, worked to create a strong economy, began the overhaul of the MBTA, and supported public education.

But he also hit some strong conservative issues. He reminded delegates that he backs imposing the death penalty for those who kill police officers, that he vetoed a huge legislative pay raise and he opposed making Massachusetts a sanctuary state.
Click to expand...
 
I was there. Charlie Baker gave his usual safe feel good speech. Had a video intro before he spoke.


Pastor Scott Lively did better than everyone was expecting. He aggressively went after the Governor.


Baker got 1,577 delegate votes, for nearly 69.8 percent, and Lively secured 626 votes, or just over 27.5 percent.

Read more: Baker accepts GOP convention endorsement for gov; Lively also qualifies for ballot

Who do you think won
 
thousm said:
There are about 300.000 firearms owners who will stay home and not vote.
Click to expand...

Need to change that. Gun owners should be out in force to show Baker the door. We get a shit next Gov? So what. Can't be as bad as we have it now assuming you're a single issue voter. The only vote that doesn't count is the one not cast.
 
kevin9 said:
Cite, preferable fact-based?
Click to expand...
The Pink Swastika - Wikipedia
plus multiple interviews with Lively personally, including during his 2014 run for governor, where he explains that he believes that homosexuality is against God's order, and since he explicitly wants a government according to his reading of the holy text he advises for laws that ban or constrain homosexuality.
 
kevin9 said:
Cite, preferable fact-based?
Click to expand...
"
SPRINGFIELD -- Scott Lively, a controversial anti-gay pastor and activist, announced Friday that he will run as a Republican in Massachusetts' 2018 gubernatorial contest, setting up a primary fight against incumbent Gov. Charlie Baker.

Lively, who previously ran as an independent against Baker in 2014, said the governor's work on Beacon Hill has inspired him to once again throw his hat into the ring.
Lively runs the church Redemption Gate Mission Society and owns the coffee shop Holy Grounds.

In 2012, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a "crimes against humanity" lawsuit against the pastor on behalf of Sexual Minorities Uganda for Lively's reported actions in Uganda in support of a controversial law criminalizing homosexuality in that country.

U.S District Court Judge Michael A. Ponsor dismissed the case against Lively in June, ruling it lacked the jurisdiction to proceed in a U.S. court.

He, however, noted in his 25-page decision, that he found Lively's views on LGBT issues ranging from "the ludicrous to the abhorrent" and that "the crackpot bigotry could be brushed aside as pathetic, except for the terrible harm it could cause."
Lively, in response to the ruling, filed an appeal charging that Ponsor, although reaching the correct conclusion, directed language at the pastor that was mean.

News of Lively's decision to enter the Massachusetts governor's race drew criticism from the Human Rights Campaign, which described the Republican's values as "hate."

"He is one of America's most notorious exporters of dangerous ideologies around the globe, and he's hell-bent on dragging Massachusetts down the same path," said JoDee Winterhof, HRC Senior Vice President for Policy and Political Affairs, in a statement. "Lively's politics of hate and fear do not represent Bay Staters."
Anti-LGBT Springfield pastor Scott Lively to challenge Gov. Charlie Baker in GOP primary
 
Mesatchornug said:
The Pink Swastika - Wikipedia
plus multiple interviews with Lively personally, including during his 2014 run for governor, where he explains that he believes that homosexuality is against God's order, and since he explicitly wants a government according to his reading of the holy text he advises for laws that ban or constrain homosexuality.
Click to expand...

hey at least Bible can be interpreted unlike 2a. LGBT should take it up their ass this one time in return to thousands of leftie moonbats we got from their endorsed candidates.
 
Boris said:
hey at least Bible can be interpreted unlike 2a. LGBT should take it up their ass this one time in return to thousands of leftie moonbats we got from their endorsed candidates.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I can endorse the horsetrading of rights. They're all real, and all important.
 
Sadly after reading the huffpost article, Houston we have a problem!

  • Mass is a very liberal state. The desire to welcome every illegal, offer welfare to everyone and embrace every liberal thought and position is very real and overwhelming amongst the population.
  • Lively's stance on gay rights WILL cause a major backlash if he wins the nomination and the sympathy vote will all go to the Wicked Bitch of the West!
  • I'm all for teaching Faker a lesson and making him spend effort on the challenge . . . BUT mark my words above, if he loses the primary Healey is Your next governor and dictator (I'm planning on escaping before she takes office).
 
Len-2A Training said:
Sadly after reading the huffpost article, Houston we have a problem!

  • Mass is a very liberal state. The desire to welcome every illegal, offer welfare to everyone and embrace every liberal thought and position is very real and overwhelming amongst the population.
  • Lively's stance on gay rights WILL cause a major backlash if he wins the nomination and the sympathy vote will all go to the Wicked Bitch of the West!
  • I'm all for teaching Faker a lesson and making him spend effort on the challenge . . . BUT mark my words above, if he loses the primary Healey is Your next governor and dictator (I'm planning on escaping before she takes office).
Click to expand...

And.....

We should continue to get kicked in the head because the next one might/will kick us in the yam bag too?

Making up my Lively sign for my truck this week.

SAY NO TO BAKER
 
Len-2A Training said:
  • Lively's stance on gay rights WILL cause a major backlash if he wins the nomination and the sympathy vote will all go to the Wicked Bitch of the West!
Click to expand...
Not to worry - this was all about sending Baker a message. There are still hard feelings for Baker over the state committee races a couple of years ago, when he spent a a lot amount of money opposing conservatives. Those people and their friends and supporters were in Worcester Saturday. As were Trump supporters and 2A advocates. That's where Lively's 27% came from. These people may loathe Baker, but most of them know better than actually risking a Lively victory in the primary. They will blank the ballot, or not bother to vote at all, and Baker will easily win the primary.

As for the primary race, I doubt Baker will debate Lively. Much more for him to lose than to gain there. Lively is no pushover, and might maul Baker if they got on a stage together. Better Baker take a few shots from Lively calling him a coward than risk being embarrassed by him in a debate.
 
Freddy B said:
Not to worry - this was all about sending Baker a message. There are still hard feelings for Baker over the state committee races a couple of years ago, when he spent a a lot amount of money opposing conservatives. Those people and their friends and supporters were in Worcester Saturday. As were Trump supporters and 2A advocates. That's where Lively's 27% came from. These people may loathe Baker, but most of them know better than actually risking a Lively victory in the primary. They will blank the ballot, or not bother to vote at all, and Baker will easily win the primary.

As for the primary race, I doubt Baker will debate Lively. Much more for him to lose than to gain there. Lively is no pushover, and might maul Baker if they got on a stage together. Better Baker take a few shots from Lively calling him a coward than risk being embarrassed by him in a debate.
Click to expand...

This nails it.

I really didn't think that Lively would get the support to get up onto the stage or if he did gain just enough support, MAGOP would finagle a way to keep him off. Glad he was able to get up and deliver a few shots at Baker. As far as going forward, the post above is right on. There is no path to victory for Lively. Pretty sure he knows it and will just work at being a PITA.

Many will vote for Baker the way he voted for Trump... Blank.
 
This sucks.
If this guy can at least give Baker a twist, imagine if someone decent had thrown in.
Still wouldn't vote for that RINO pos if it could save my life.
 
A HuffPo puff piece that quotes 1 paragraph from a 11 year old letter, and a Wikipedia article on a 23 year old book, both distorting Scott Lively's position (ex. criminalizing or banning homosexuality); not exactly what I would call reputable and unbiased sources.

Here's Scott's official position on LGBQ issues: Scott Lively. Click on the "continuing reading" link, read the whole thing, and make up your own mind whether he's really a homophobe or not. For extra credit, compare his beliefs, and practices, to those of fundamentalist Muslims. He clearly has a traditional Christian view of homosexuality, and wants to get advocacy for LGBQ positions and lifestyles out of government, on par with how religion is treated WRT government, but nowhere does he advocate for criminalizing or banning homosexual practices.

All that said, it's pretty clear his beliefs, while IMNSHO not homophobic, clearly are in a minority in the Commiewealth, and far enough so that the opposition and media (redundant I know) will continue to tar him with the defamatory homophobic label. He is un-electable in MA, but IMNSHO he'd be better than Faker.
 
Mesatchornug said:
I'm not sure I can endorse the horsetrading of rights. They're all real, and all important.
Click to expand...
True, we should not.

I am wandering why Scott is running then, it seems like a big issue already in ultra liberal state. It's like he is a decoy for Faker to make another run for a GOP nomination.
 
kevin9 said:
Wikipedia article on a 23 year old book
Click to expand...
How's the 2014 republication direct to internet The Pink Swastika

Again, I don't care about his opinions on LGBTQIA. Nor do I care about his faith.

However, I can't support someone that wants to use the government to constrain anyone's rights. I agree, asking to use his reading of the Bible to help guide the government is curiously comparable to Sharia, which I also wouldn't support. I've reviewed his arguments, and find them lacking.

You've your opinions, and I've mine. I have no interest in trying to change yours, and feel that there's nothing I can say to more fully explain mine. With that, I'm out on this part of the topic.
 

Similar threads

VA Governor Youngkin vetoes AWB
Replies
2
Views
180
Reptile
Reptile
post trump, covid vax family relations: conservatives vs liberals
3 4 5
Replies
130
Views
3K
67ray
67ray
Cheap vs Expensive Red Dots
Replies
8
Views
485
johngalt2
J
Holosun 510 vs Holosun AMES
Replies
6
Views
225
PappyM3
PappyM3
For those who question the strength of M2A1 vs M2A2 ammo cans, here's an interesting article on the subject.
Replies
12
Views
380
Uzi2
U
Back
Top Bottom