MA-GOV: Who will challenge Baker?

[smoltchanov]

I think I'll cross over and vote for Gov. Baker.  He seemed like a genuinely nice person when he appeared at a homeless dinner a few years back.

Doesn't change the fact that he recently cut funding for homeless shelters.

Sometimes you must cut somewhere. Liberals frequently amuse me: they act as if they have unlimited source of money. In such case it would be another matter. But not - in reality..

[smoltchanov]

I think I'll cross over and vote for Gov. Baker.  He seemed like a genuinely nice person when he appeared at a homeless dinner a few years back.

Doesn't change the fact that he recently cut funding for homeless shelters.

Sometimes you must cut somewhere. Liberals frequently amuse me: they act as if they have unlimited source of money. In such case it would be another matter. But not - in reality..

I mean, you could raise taxes....

Tax and spend, tax and spend... The only thing liberals know. I am tired to hear this since 1960th.....

[smoltchanov]

I think I'll cross over and vote for Gov. Baker.  He seemed like a genuinely nice person when he appeared at a homeless dinner a few years back.

Doesn't change the fact that he recently cut funding for homeless shelters.

Sometimes you must cut somewhere. Liberals frequently amuse me: they act as if they have unlimited source of money. In such case it would be another matter. But not - in reality..

No, you do need to cut funding for homeless shelters, there are different things to do, like yes increasing taxes on the rich, or cutting in different areas. It is question of decency and morality.

Taxing those who earns money in order to give it to those who doesn't (and frequently doesn't want to do anything about that) was always a liberal's obsession.... Your "rich" usually EARN money, so, of course, they must be taxed to death)))))

[smoltchanov]

I think I'll cross over and vote for Gov. Baker.  He seemed like a genuinely nice person when he appeared at a homeless dinner a few years back.

Doesn't change the fact that he recently cut funding for homeless shelters.

Sometimes you must cut somewhere. Liberals frequently amuse me: they act as if they have unlimited source of money. In such case it would be another matter. But not - in reality..

No, you do need to cut funding for homeless shelters, there are different things to do, like yes increasing taxes on the rich, or cutting in different areas. It is question of decency and morality.

Taxing those who earns money in order to give it to those who doesn't (and frequently doesn't want to do anything about that) was always a liberal's obsession.... Your "rich" usually EARN money, so, of course, they must be taxed to death)))))

Yes, the poor rich people When you know you could use it to lift people out of poverty, and not cut homeless shelters.  I feel bad for the rich people that have to pay a little more in tax, on the income they make above $ .....

Again - they EARN that income. What initiative i would have to work hard if i would know that you plan to deprive me of bigger and bigger chunk of my hard-earned income in favor of those, who can, but doesn't want to earn "their" money??

[smoltchanov]

I think I'll cross over and vote for Gov. Baker.  He seemed like a genuinely nice person when he appeared at a homeless dinner a few years back.

Doesn't change the fact that he recently cut funding for homeless shelters.

Sometimes you must cut somewhere. Liberals frequently amuse me: they act as if they have unlimited source of money. In such case it would be another matter. But not - in reality..

No, you do need to cut funding for homeless shelters, there are different things to do, like yes increasing taxes on the rich, or cutting in different areas. It is question of decency and morality.

Taxing those who earns money in order to give it to those who doesn't (and frequently doesn't want to do anything about that) was always a liberal's obsession.... Your "rich" usually EARN money, so, of course, they must be taxed to death)))))

Yes, the poor rich people When you know you could use it to lift people out of poverty, and not cut homeless shelters.  I feel bad for the rich people that have to pay a little more in tax, on the income they make above $ .....

Again - they EARN that income. What initiative i would have to work hard if i would know that you plan to deprive me of bigger and bigger chunk of my hard-earned income in favor of those, who can, but doesn't want to earn "their" money??

Nobody, but a society is based upon cooperation and looking out for those in need, therefore yes, the rich do have to pay to live in such a society, and pay increased levels in tax. It is a moral and social obligation.

Words and very standard words to boot. If i am forced by "society" to pay excessive taxes (as in Sweden - up to 95% on high incomes as i heard) i WILL NOT work and earn such incomes. And let such "society" be damned!

[smoltchanov]

^ I am not rich (my present $700/month isn't too much even for Russia), and not greedy. Whether i am sinful and awful - it's not for you to decide))). I help people when i can, but i don't think anyone (even rich) must pay as taxes 80% of their incomes after some value. Slightly progressive scale - yes, but word "slightly" is a key for me (in fact - there is flat 13% tax in Russia now, so i am a "progressive")))). I help (even here) truly needy, but have no intention to help lazy scoundrels. Period.

[smoltchanov]

^ Obviously we will never agree. Sp, let's end this "discussion". We both will stick to our opinions....

[smoltchanov]

Can you at least stop the "If you don't like Baker you're a partisan hack" charade?

I never used the word "hack". But you are, obviously, very partisan Democrat. While i am not. Feel the difference

BTW - what's Baker rating NOW?

[smoltchanov]

If i remember correctly - something about 70-20. And i am forced to take back my words: of these 20% majority are, probably, "partisan Democratic hacks". Few percent of Greens and left Indies, even fewer - far-right Republicans and conservative Indies, but other - .......

[smoltchanov]

If i remember correctly - something about 70-20. And i am forced to take back my words: of these 20% majority are, probably, "partisan Democratic hacks". Few percent of Greens and left Indies, even fewer - far-right Republicans and conservative Indies, but other - .......

Not really sure what your point is. Anyway, I am a proud member of the 20% or whatever. Also notice that you start going on this crusade against anyone who dares to criticize Flawless Beautiful Charlie as soon as you lost the argument about his policies.

Naturally. I like him. We are close ideologically, so why i must not? Partisan Democrats begin their crusades as soon as someone criticizes Obama, Clinton, Pelosi or party. Why must i be different?

[smoltchanov]

If i remember correctly - something about 70-20. And i am forced to take back my words: of these 20% majority are, probably, "partisan Democratic hacks". Few percent of Greens and left Indies, even fewer - far-right Republicans and conservative Indies, but other - .......

Not really sure what your point is. Anyway, I am a proud member of the 20% or whatever. Also notice that you start going on this crusade against anyone who dares to criticize Flawless Beautiful Charlie as soon as you lost the argument about his policies.

Naturally. I like him. We are close ideologically, so why i must not? Partisan Democrats begin their crusades as soon as someone criticizes Obama, Clinton, Pelosi or party. Why must i be different?

I mean, I don't accuse people of being partisan hacks with no values whenever someone criticizes those people.

You may have values and be partisan hack, no? IMHO, in fact majority of hacks have exceedingly strong values, but they are hacks in a sense that they are interested in their party (and it's political dominance) only, people's desire notwithstanding...

[smoltchanov]

If i remember correctly - something about 70-20. And i am forced to take back my words: of these 20% majority are, probably, "partisan Democratic hacks". Few percent of Greens and left Indies, even fewer - far-right Republicans and conservative Indies, but other - .......

Not really sure what your point is. Anyway, I am a proud member of the 20% or whatever. Also notice that you start going on this crusade against anyone who dares to criticize Flawless Beautiful Charlie as soon as you lost the argument about his policies.

Naturally. I like him. We are close ideologically, so why i must not? Partisan Democrats begin their crusades as soon as someone criticizes Obama, Clinton, Pelosi or party. Why must i be different?

I mean, I don't accuse people of being partisan hacks with no values whenever someone criticizes those people.

You may have values and be partisan hack, no? IMHO, in fact majority of hacks have exceedingly strong values, but they are hacks in a sense that they are interested in their party (and it's political dominance) only, people's desire notwithstanding...

Charlie Baker is not all that good, and he would lose if given a serious opponent. Sadly, I don't think he will get one.

Only serious?)))) That will not be enough)))

[smoltchanov]

If i remember correctly - something about 70-20. And i am forced to take back my words: of these 20% majority are, probably, "partisan Democratic hacks". Few percent of Greens and left Indies, even fewer - far-right Republicans and conservative Indies, but other - .......

Not really sure what your point is. Anyway, I am a proud member of the 20% or whatever. Also notice that you start going on this crusade against anyone who dares to criticize Flawless Beautiful Charlie as soon as you lost the argument about his policies.

Naturally. I like him. We are close ideologically, so why i must not? Partisan Democrats begin their crusades as soon as someone criticizes Obama, Clinton, Pelosi or party. Why must i be different?

I mean, I don't accuse people of being partisan hacks with no values whenever someone criticizes those people.

You may have values and be partisan hack, no? IMHO, in fact majority of hacks have exceedingly strong values, but they are hacks in a sense that they are interested in their party (and it's political dominance) only, people's desire notwithstanding...

Are you suggesting that I should like Charlie Baker just because other people like Charlie Baker? What if some of those 70% just like him because other people do?

No. It's your business. And some people really like him because other tell he is good. But i doubt that percentage of such people is high..

[smoltchanov]

If i remember correctly - something about 70-20. And i am forced to take back my words: of these 20% majority are, probably, "partisan Democratic hacks". Few percent of Greens and left Indies, even fewer - far-right Republicans and conservative Indies, but other - .......

Not really sure what your point is. Anyway, I am a proud member of the 20% or whatever. Also notice that you start going on this crusade against anyone who dares to criticize Flawless Beautiful Charlie as soon as you lost the argument about his policies.

Naturally. I like him. We are close ideologically, so why i must not? Partisan Democrats begin their crusades as soon as someone criticizes Obama, Clinton, Pelosi or party. Why must i be different?

I mean, I don't accuse people of being partisan hacks with no values whenever someone criticizes those people.

You may have values and be partisan hack, no? IMHO, in fact majority of hacks have exceedingly strong values, but they are hacks in a sense that they are interested in their party (and it's political dominance) only, people's desire notwithstanding...

Are you suggesting that I should like Charlie Baker just because other people like Charlie Baker? What if some of those 70% just like him because other people do?

No. It's your business. And some people really like him because other tell he is good. But i doubt that percentage of such people is high..

I doubt it as well (I think it's more because no one really knows anything bad about him) but it would be high if everyone followed your logic.

It's MY logic. Which serves ME well. I don't pretend it to be everyone's logic...