Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Arid Filch

Chris Christie for President 2016 +1,200

Recommended Posts

This country needs a President that is liked by both sides. They don't need to love the guy, just respect him. I think Christie is a great choice. We'll never get out of this funk unless we stop electing polarizing people, IMO.

agree with this.

When New Jersey was hurting from sandy he gave Obama the credit he deserved politics be damned because he was fighting for the people he governed.

Laughable that republicans in this thread slam Christie for that.

Republicans can either nominate Christie and win, or not and lose. That's the choice.

While true, had Sandy missed NJ and instead decimated Rhode Island, you wouldn't have heard anything from Christie about Obama doing a good job. Christie needed help - to his credit he asked for it.

What's wrong with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*I really think Christie's personality has the potential to play well in a general election...I think a lot of people are looking for someone who will tell it like it is and tell someone to screw when appropriate...he can't turn himself into a caricature or be pre-mediated in his behavior but I really believe many Republicans are looking for a candidate/leader that is tough...I think that is part of the appeal of Ted Cruz to some on the right (or it was)...believe in him or not he is showing balls...the one bump Romney got was the first debate when he was aggressive...that was one of the few times he had a buzz during the campaign...to often grassroots Republicans feel their candidates act like ####### and they want to see them go toe-to-toe with someone like Chris Mathews or George Stephanopolous...Christie has that potential and it could win over some who are not on the same page with some of his politics...

*It will be real interesting to see dems attack Christie...like Romney and McCain prior to being actual nominees you hear/read dems saying Christie is a candidate they would consider...I think this is BS...when push comes to shove I fully expect them to attempt to paint him as a right-wing extremist...it's the left's playbook and I don't see it changing regardless of who the candidate is...it will also be interesting to see the PC crowd take a shot at his appearance...

*Hillary has one big problem...she is very unlikable when you get her in large doses...I truly believe the thought of Hillary is what some people like...when she is in the background she is seen as this larger-than-life figure (why, I do not know)...yet, I just don't see her playing well in a general election being in the public eye on a daily basis...that will not be her strength...a likeable Obama came out of nowhere to beat her in 2008 and I see her being very vulnerable should the GOP have a quality candidate...the big if is having a quality candidate...

Did this actually happen? I think in both cases it was pointed out that they had switched to a more conservative position on a few key issues, from where they had been on record previously. It was also heavily pointed out that their economic policies were basically indistinguishable from GWB. I don't recall there being much right-wing extremist talk about either though.

I don't ever remember the word moderate being used in reference to either during their presidential runs...spin it how you like but the word "maverick" was no longer used about McCain and Romney's ability to win in the bluest of blue states was no longer a plus...the dems pretty much paint every GOPer as extreme or beholden to extremists...it is standard operating procedure and to their credit it is working pretty well...it used to work for the Republicans as well which is one of the reasons you started to see the word progressive instead of liberal...

Edited by Boston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*I really think Christie's personality has the potential to play well in a general election...I think a lot of people are looking for someone who will tell it like it is and tell someone to screw when appropriate...he can't turn himself into a caricature or be pre-mediated in his behavior but I really believe many Republicans are looking for a candidate/leader that is tough...I think that is part of the appeal of Ted Cruz to some on the right (or it was)...believe in him or not he is showing balls...the one bump Romney got was the first debate when he was aggressive...that was one of the few times he had a buzz during the campaign...to often grassroots Republicans feel their candidates act like ####### and they want to see them go toe-to-toe with someone like Chris Mathews or George Stephanopolous...Christie has that potential and it could win over some who are not on the same page with some of his politics...

*It will be real interesting to see dems attack Christie...like Romney and McCain prior to being actual nominees you hear/read dems saying Christie is a candidate they would consider...I think this is BS...when push comes to shove I fully expect them to attempt to paint him as a right-wing extremist...it's the left's playbook and I don't see it changing regardless of who the candidate is...it will also be interesting to see the PC crowd take a shot at his appearance...

*Hillary has one big problem...she is very unlikable when you get her in large doses...I truly believe the thought of Hillary is what some people like...when she is in the background she is seen as this larger-than-life figure (why, I do not know)...yet, I just don't see her playing well in a general election being in the public eye on a daily basis...that will not be her strength...a likeable Obama came out of nowhere to beat her in 2008 and I see her being very vulnerable should the GOP have a quality candidate...the big if is having a quality candidate...

Did this actually happen? I think in both cases it was pointed out that they had switched to a more conservative position on a few key issues, from where they had been on record previously. It was also heavily pointed out that their economic policies were basically indistinguishable from GWB. I don't recall there being much right-wing extremist talk about either though.

I don't ever remember the word moderate being used in reference to either during their presidential runs...spin it how you like but the word "maverick" was no longer used about McCain and Romney's ability to win in the bluest of blue states was no longer a plus...the dems pretty much paint every GOPer as extreme or beholden to extremists...it is standard operating procedure and to their credit it is working pretty well...it used to work for the Republicans as well which is one of the reasons you started to see the word progressive instead of liberal...

Because McCain isn't a maverick really. Romney spent his whole time running to the right away from his record and winning a blue state was no longer a plus because the baggers said so. At least be intellectually honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*I really think Christie's personality has the potential to play well in a general election...I think a lot of people are looking for someone who will tell it like it is and tell someone to screw when appropriate...he can't turn himself into a caricature or be pre-mediated in his behavior but I really believe many Republicans are looking for a candidate/leader that is tough...I think that is part of the appeal of Ted Cruz to some on the right (or it was)...believe in him or not he is showing balls...the one bump Romney got was the first debate when he was aggressive...that was one of the few times he had a buzz during the campaign...to often grassroots Republicans feel their candidates act like ####### and they want to see them go toe-to-toe with someone like Chris Mathews or George Stephanopolous...Christie has that potential and it could win over some who are not on the same page with some of his politics...

*It will be real interesting to see dems attack Christie...like Romney and McCain prior to being actual nominees you hear/read dems saying Christie is a candidate they would consider...I think this is BS...when push comes to shove I fully expect them to attempt to paint him as a right-wing extremist...it's the left's playbook and I don't see it changing regardless of who the candidate is...it will also be interesting to see the PC crowd take a shot at his appearance...

*Hillary has one big problem...she is very unlikable when you get her in large doses...I truly believe the thought of Hillary is what some people like...when she is in the background she is seen as this larger-than-life figure (why, I do not know)...yet, I just don't see her playing well in a general election being in the public eye on a daily basis...that will not be her strength...a likeable Obama came out of nowhere to beat her in 2008 and I see her being very vulnerable should the GOP have a quality candidate...the big if is having a quality candidate...

Did this actually happen? I think in both cases it was pointed out that they had switched to a more conservative position on a few key issues, from where they had been on record previously. It was also heavily pointed out that their economic policies were basically indistinguishable from GWB. I don't recall there being much right-wing extremist talk about either though.

I don't ever remember the word moderate being used in reference to either during their presidential runs...spin it how you like but the word "maverick" was no longer used about McCain and Romney's ability to win in the bluest of blue states was no longer a plus...the dems pretty much paint every GOPer as extreme or beholden to extremists...it is standard operating procedure and to their credit it is working pretty well...it used to work for the Republicans as well which is one of the reasons you started to see the word progressive instead of liberal...

Because McCain isn't a maverick really. Romney spent his whole time running to the right away from his record and winning a blue state was no longer a plus because the baggers said so. At least be intellectually honest.

BS...McCain was given the maverick label by the media because he was seen as a guy who did his own thing and could not be corralled by his own party...sorry but to call this being dishonest is re-writing history...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to remind everybody that the presidency has inherent limitations that no amount of personaility or charisma will overcome. You think he's just going to get them together under the bridge Sopranos style and tell everyone how it is? Please.

Plus it's incredible how devoid of policy this thread is. We get into the election and suss out everybody's policy positions and he's going to look much more like your run of the mill conservative. You think he's going to go all mushy at the Iowa straw poll? Please.

Where's the air between him and standard Republican policy? I really don't know. At the end of the day republicans are pursuing policies that are fundamentally unpopular to the American Electorate. Immigration, taxes, entitlements, the environment. THAT'S WHY THEY KEEP LOSING NATIONAL ELECTIONS.

Right now is the dating phase. Everybody has the warm fuzzies. We'll get down in the weeds on policy soon enough. He has some national name recognition but Johnny midwest has no idea where he is on policy. They see him and O huggin it out and he looks reasonable.

And if you think Hill Dog can't take a punch and throw one back I have some shorefront property in Arizona to selll you.

That and he's not been vetted by the national media yet. You think there's no skeletons in a life of New Jersey policitics? Hillary is pretty much a known (BENGHAZI!!!!/WHITEWATER!!!) commodity. We haven't aired his laundry yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to remind everybody that the presidency has inherent limitations that no amount of personaility or charisma will overcome. You think he's just going to get them together under the bridge Sopranos style and tell everyone how it is? Please.

Plus it's incredible how devoid of policy this thread is. We get into the election and suss out everybody's policy positions and he's going to look much more like your run of the mill conservative. You think he's going to go all mushy at the Iowa straw poll? Please.

Where's the air between him and standard Republican policy? I really don't know. At the end of the day republicans are pursuing policies that are fundamentally unpopular to the American Electorate. Immigration, taxes, entitlements, the environment. THAT'S WHY THEY KEEP LOSING NATIONAL ELECTIONS.

Right now is the dating phase. Everybody has the warm fuzzies. We'll get down in the weeds on policy soon enough. He has some national name recognition but Johnny midwest has no idea where he is on policy. They see him and O huggin it out and he looks reasonable.

And if you think Hill Dog can't take a punch and throw one back I have some shorefront property in Arizona to selll you.

That and he's not been vetted by the national media yet. You think there's no skeletons in a life of New Jersey policitics? Hillary is pretty much a known (BENGHAZI!!!!/WHITEWATER!!!) commodity. We haven't aired his laundry yet.

Ok...so vetting will be important, personality and charisma won't matter and policy positions that don't involve voting present will be researched...sounds like a good idea...too bad that wasn't done in 2008...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*I really think Christie's personality has the potential to play well in a general election...I think a lot of people are looking for someone who will tell it like it is and tell someone to screw when appropriate...he can't turn himself into a caricature or be pre-mediated in his behavior but I really believe many Republicans are looking for a candidate/leader that is tough...I think that is part of the appeal of Ted Cruz to some on the right (or it was)...believe in him or not he is showing balls...the one bump Romney got was the first debate when he was aggressive...that was one of the few times he had a buzz during the campaign...to often grassroots Republicans feel their candidates act like ####### and they want to see them go toe-to-toe with someone like Chris Mathews or George Stephanopolous...Christie has that potential and it could win over some who are not on the same page with some of his politics...

*It will be real interesting to see dems attack Christie...like Romney and McCain prior to being actual nominees you hear/read dems saying Christie is a candidate they would consider...I think this is BS...when push comes to shove I fully expect them to attempt to paint him as a right-wing extremist...it's the left's playbook and I don't see it changing regardless of who the candidate is...it will also be interesting to see the PC crowd take a shot at his appearance...

*Hillary has one big problem...she is very unlikable when you get her in large doses...I truly believe the thought of Hillary is what some people like...when she is in the background she is seen as this larger-than-life figure (why, I do not know)...yet, I just don't see her playing well in a general election being in the public eye on a daily basis...that will not be her strength...a likeable Obama came out of nowhere to beat her in 2008 and I see her being very vulnerable should the GOP have a quality candidate...the big if is having a quality candidate...

Did this actually happen? I think in both cases it was pointed out that they had switched to a more conservative position on a few key issues, from where they had been on record previously. It was also heavily pointed out that their economic policies were basically indistinguishable from GWB. I don't recall there being much right-wing extremist talk about either though.

I don't ever remember the word moderate being used in reference to either during their presidential runs...spin it how you like but the word "maverick" was no longer used about McCain and Romney's ability to win in the bluest of blue states was no longer a plus...the dems pretty much paint every GOPer as extreme or beholden to extremists...it is standard operating procedure and to their credit it is working pretty well...it used to work for the Republicans as well which is one of the reasons you started to see the word progressive instead of liberal...

Both McCain and Romney ran to the right of their previous record to get the party nomination, which is really to be expected on both sides. But the general sense I got from liberals I know both on this board and people I'm connected with is that they were relieved Romney got the nomination. I mean, no national campaign is going to go out of their way to try to make the other guy seem more moderate, and there will always be elements on both sides spouting off rhetoric.

On balance though, do you really think there was an equal amount of Romney and McCain being portrayed as far-right extremists compared to Obama being called a far-left radical? I don't think it was even close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is the ONLY Republican with a shot of winning. Naturally the Tea Party types hate him because he's (1) not crazy (2) believes in treating Obama and the Democrats with respect and civility. He's the closest thing we have to Alan Alda's character from The West Wing.

Personally I'd prefer Huntsman, but he has no shot. So I'll gladly vote for Christie if given the chance.

Which means he has no chance whatsoever. Like us or not, you need us to salvage that crapfest you call a party. So you're doomed.

We don't need you. If you guys left we'd have most independents on our side. Please feel free to leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is the ONLY Republican with a shot of winning. Naturally the Tea Party types hate him because he's (1) not crazy (2) believes in treating Obama and the Democrats with respect and civility. He's the closest thing we have to Alan Alda's character from The West Wing.

Personally I'd prefer Huntsman, but he has no shot. So I'll gladly vote for Christie if given the chance.

Which means he has no chance whatsoever. Like us or not, you need us to salvage that crapfest you call a party. So you're doomed.

We don't need you. If you guys left we'd have most independents on our side. Please feel free to leave.

The independents are laughing at you too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to remind everybody that the presidency has inherent limitations that no amount of personaility or charisma will overcome. You think he's just going to get them together under the bridge Sopranos style and tell everyone how it is? Please.

Plus it's incredible how devoid of policy this thread is. We get into the election and suss out everybody's policy positions and he's going to look much more like your run of the mill conservative. You think he's going to go all mushy at the Iowa straw poll? Please.

Where's the air between him and standard Republican policy? I really don't know. At the end of the day republicans are pursuing policies that are fundamentally unpopular to the American Electorate. Immigration, taxes, entitlements, the environment. THAT'S WHY THEY KEEP LOSING NATIONAL ELECTIONS.

Right now is the dating phase. Everybody has the warm fuzzies. We'll get down in the weeds on policy soon enough. He has some national name recognition but Johnny midwest has no idea where he is on policy. They see him and O huggin it out and he looks reasonable.

And if you think Hill Dog can't take a punch and throw one back I have some shorefront property in Arizona to selll you.

That and he's not been vetted by the national media yet. You think there's no skeletons in a life of New Jersey policitics? Hillary is pretty much a known (BENGHAZI!!!!/WHITEWATER!!!) commodity. We haven't aired his laundry yet.

Ok...so vetting will be important, personality and charisma won't matter and policy positions that don't involve voting present will be researched...sounds like a good idea...too bad that wasn't done in 2008...

That's certainly one way to look at it. Obama got his "palling around with Terrorists" stuff and his inexperience stuff and a whole lot more. He handled himself under pressure, didn't look like he was in over his head and had policy prescriptions that a majority of Americans could get down with.

Seem's like you thought he got the "rock star" treatment. A lot did. Not nearly enough. A huge chunk of people are voting R or D right now regardless who's running. Prolly you and me. Who convinces the squishes in the middle the best will get it done.

Maybe Christie has the steel, maybe he doesn't. But he hasn't been in the forge yet. Nothing even close to it. But rest assured events will take place that put him back on his heels. We'll see how he handles it. Like for instance does he have the slightest idea what he's talking about foreign policy wise? O had a big vote on Iraq. He sure as hell can't talk to foreign leaders like he does union members and house wives in New Jersey. Steppin up to the bigs. Let's see what he's got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why people think Christie is some moderate, straight talking neo-politician. He just seems like a normal republican and a bit of a bully. And he has no problem using 9-11 widows and fear to sell his policies.

Link

"As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought," Christie said at the forum.

"You can name any number of people" with those views, Christie said, and Paul is one of them. He urged Paul to explain his position to families of 9/11 victims.

"I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. And they won’t, because that’s a much tougher conversation to have," he said.

Edited by whoknew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*I really think Christie's personality has the potential to play well in a general election...I think a lot of people are looking for someone who will tell it like it is and tell someone to screw when appropriate...he can't turn himself into a caricature or be pre-mediated in his behavior but I really believe many Republicans are looking for a candidate/leader that is tough...I think that is part of the appeal of Ted Cruz to some on the right (or it was)...believe in him or not he is showing balls...the one bump Romney got was the first debate when he was aggressive...that was one of the few times he had a buzz during the campaign...to often grassroots Republicans feel their candidates act like ####### and they want to see them go toe-to-toe with someone like Chris Mathews or George Stephanopolous...Christie has that potential and it could win over some who are not on the same page with some of his politics...

*It will be real interesting to see dems attack Christie...like Romney and McCain prior to being actual nominees you hear/read dems saying Christie is a candidate they would consider...I think this is BS...when push comes to shove I fully expect them to attempt to paint him as a right-wing extremist...it's the left's playbook and I don't see it changing regardless of who the candidate is...it will also be interesting to see the PC crowd take a shot at his appearance...

*Hillary has one big problem...she is very unlikable when you get her in large doses...I truly believe the thought of Hillary is what some people like...when she is in the background she is seen as this larger-than-life figure (why, I do not know)...yet, I just don't see her playing well in a general election being in the public eye on a daily basis...that will not be her strength...a likeable Obama came out of nowhere to beat her in 2008 and I see her being very vulnerable should the GOP have a quality candidate...the big if is having a quality candidate...

Cruz's voice more or less eliminates him from winning POTUS. Who can take that voice seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why people think Christie is some moderate, straight talking neo-politician. He just seems like a normal republican and a bit of a bully. And he has no problem using 9-11 widows and fear to sell his policies.

Link

"As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism thats going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought," Christie said at the forum.

"You can name any number of people" with those views, Christie said, and Paul is one of them. He urged Paul to explain his position to families of 9/11 victims.

"I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. And they wont, because thats a much tougher conversation to have," he said.

Why don't you go to the families of 9/11 victims and explain your love affair with extremist libertarian views that will allow another 9/11 to happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't see him getting the nomination.

The Tea Party would kill it (like they're killing the party)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's definitely a well-rounded candidate.

(did you see what I did there, huh, did you?)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to remind everybody that the presidency has inherent limitations that no amount of personaility or charisma will overcome. You think he's just going to get them together under the bridge Sopranos style and tell everyone how it is? Please.

Plus it's incredible how devoid of policy this thread is. We get into the election and suss out everybody's policy positions and he's going to look much more like your run of the mill conservative. You think he's going to go all mushy at the Iowa straw poll? Please.

Where's the air between him and standard Republican policy? I really don't know. At the end of the day republicans are pursuing policies that are fundamentally unpopular to the American Electorate. Immigration, taxes, entitlements, the environment. THAT'S WHY THEY KEEP LOSING NATIONAL ELECTIONS.

Right now is the dating phase. Everybody has the warm fuzzies. We'll get down in the weeds on policy soon enough. He has some national name recognition but Johnny midwest has no idea where he is on policy. They see him and O huggin it out and he looks reasonable.

And if you think Hill Dog can't take a punch and throw one back I have some shorefront property in Arizona to selll you.

That and he's not been vetted by the national media yet. You think there's no skeletons in a life of New Jersey policitics? Hillary is pretty much a known (BENGHAZI!!!!/WHITEWATER!!!) commodity. We haven't aired his laundry yet.

Well let's look at these 4 issues:

1. Yes, much to my shock and delight, the majority of the public is currently in favor of some sort of immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship. That is where Christie stands as well, so I don't think this will prove to be a negative for him.

2. Since when is raising taxes popular with the American public? Polls at times suggest they're in favor of raising taxes on the rich- so long as they don't have to pay it themselves. But even then raising taxes is never going be a winning political issue, which is why you don't hear the Dems emphasize it. Reagan's idea that lowering taxes generates prosperity, whether true or not, remains highly popular.

3. You're absolutely correct that Paul Ryan's proposal to change entitlements was wildly unpopular- which is why almost every Republican ran away from it, including Romney. We all know that changes are going to have to come to Social Security and Medicare, but I doubt either side is going to campaign much on it.

4. No doubt many people look at the Republican denial of climate change and think "what a bunch of crazy nuts." That's what I think. But that doesn't mean that the public is going to accept the sort of governmental restrictions on business which are currently being proposed as the "solution" to this problem, like Cap and Trade.

I don't think that ANY of these issues (with the possible exception of immigration) represent the reason that Republicans are currently losing national elections. They're losing because of the fanaticism and intransigence of the far right, as represented by the Tea Party. Remove that element, and moderate Republicans will have a decent chance to win again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why people think Christie is some moderate, straight talking neo-politician. He just seems like a normal republican and a bit of a bully. And he has no problem using 9-11 widows and fear to sell his policies.

Link

"As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought," Christie said at the forum.

"You can name any number of people" with those views, Christie said, and Paul is one of them. He urged Paul to explain his position to families of 9/11 victims.

"I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. And they won’t, because that’s a much tougher conversation to have," he said.

He's absolutely right about that. Libertarianism is not the word I would use to describe Paul- neo-isolationist is much better. But the criticism is dead on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why people think Christie is some moderate, straight talking neo-politician. He just seems like a normal republican and a bit of a bully. And he has no problem using 9-11 widows and fear to sell his policies.

Link

"As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought," Christie said at the forum.

"You can name any number of people" with those views, Christie said, and Paul is one of them. He urged Paul to explain his position to families of 9/11 victims.

"I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. And they won’t, because that’s a much tougher conversation to have," he said.

He's absolutely right about that. Libertarianism is not the word I would use to describe Paul- neo-isolationist is much better. But the criticism is dead on.
Of course you would have no problem using widows and orphans for political purposes. This statement alone should be reason enough for anyone not to vote for this pos. He can disdain a viewpoint as much as he wants to but he is a sorry excuse of a human to tell someone who doesn't think like he does to go explain their viewpoints to widows and orphans. Fat ####er.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

N

I don't know why people think Christie is some moderate, straight talking neo-politician. He just seems like a normal republican and a bit of a bully. And he has no problem using 9-11 widows and fear to sell his policies.

Link

"As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought," Christie said at the forum.

"You can name any number of people" with those views, Christie said, and Paul is one of them. He urged Paul to explain his position to families of 9/11 victims.

"I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. And they won’t, because that’s a much tougher conversation to have," he said.

He's absolutely right about that. Libertarianism is not the word I would use to describe Paul- neo-isolationist is much better. But the criticism is dead on.

Tim is libertarian, Ron Paul is not. :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

N

I don't know why people think Christie is some moderate, straight talking neo-politician. He just seems like a normal republican and a bit of a bully. And he has no problem using 9-11 widows and fear to sell his policies.

Link

"As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought," Christie said at the forum.

"You can name any number of people" with those views, Christie said, and Paul is one of them. He urged Paul to explain his position to families of 9/11 victims.

"I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. And they won’t, because that’s a much tougher conversation to have," he said.

He's absolutely right about that. Libertarianism is not the word I would use to describe Paul- neo-isolationist is much better. But the criticism is dead on.

Tim is libertarian, Ron Paul is not. :lmao:

I would say that is more accurate than not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

N

I don't know why people think Christie is some moderate, straight talking neo-politician. He just seems like a normal republican and a bit of a bully. And he has no problem using 9-11 widows and fear to sell his policies.

Link

"As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought," Christie said at the forum.

"You can name any number of people" with those views, Christie said, and Paul is one of them. He urged Paul to explain his position to families of 9/11 victims.

"I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. And they won’t, because that’s a much tougher conversation to have," he said.

He's absolutely right about that. Libertarianism is not the word I would use to describe Paul- neo-isolationist is much better. But the criticism is dead on.

Tim is libertarian, Ron Paul is not. :lmao:

I would say that is more accurate than not.

Oh yeah, I forgot about the 3 fundamental pillars of the libertarianism, passed down through generations of libertarians until sometime in the 1980's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why people think Christie is some moderate, straight talking neo-politician. He just seems like a normal republican and a bit of a bully. And he has no problem using 9-11 widows and fear to sell his policies.

Link

"As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought," Christie said at the forum.

"You can name any number of people" with those views, Christie said, and Paul is one of them. He urged Paul to explain his position to families of 9/11 victims.

"I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. And they won’t, because that’s a much tougher conversation to have," he said.

He's absolutely right about that. Libertarianism is not the word I would use to describe Paul- neo-isolationist is much better. But the criticism is dead on.

I think you are completely wrong about ... almost everything in your post.

But that's fine - lots of people are wrong about this issue. At least we can disagree in a reasonable manner and have a legitimate debate without resorting to fear mongering and exploiting 9/11 victims.

Edited by whoknew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This country needs a President that is liked by both sides. They don't need to love the guy, just respect him. I think Christie is a great choice. We'll never get out of this funk unless we stop electing polarizing people, IMO.

agree with this.

When New Jersey was hurting from sandy he gave Obama the credit he deserved

For what? Showing up with a concerned look on his face?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A huge chunk of people are voting R or D right now regardless who's running. Prolly you and me. Who convinces the squishes in the middle the best will get it done.

This is the truth. It all comes down to the 10% in the middle who don't pay attention to politics until a week before the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Christie. By and large, I think he's been a good governor, and he's been able to get a lot of legislation passed with a Democratic legislature. I just don't know if he'd be able to win the Republican nomination, because he seems too pragmatic. And he appointed a gay person to the state Supreme Court!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think he'd be pretty good. I'd be worried about his health and his inability to filter anything he's thinking, but I think he'd probably be as good as anyone the Republicans could offer, with the possible exception of Huntsman.

The fact that I think Christie could be passable to me tells me immediately that he has no chance.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This country needs a President that is liked by both sides. They don't need to love the guy, just respect him. I think Christie is a great choice. We'll never get out of this funk unless we stop electing polarizing people, IMO.

agree with this.

When New Jersey was hurting from sandy he gave Obama the credit he deserved

For what? Showing up with a concerned look on his face?

More likely for having the foresight not to have a horse association lawyer running FEMA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Christie. By and large, I think he's been a good governor, and he's been able to get a lot of legislation passed with a Democratic legislature. I just don't know if he'd be able to win the Republican nomination, because he seems too pragmatic. And he appointed a gay person to the state Supreme Court!

Love this schtick. It's a shame those fringe candidates McCain and Romney weren't crazy enough to win the nomination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Christie. By and large, I think he's been a good governor, and he's been able to get a lot of legislation passed with a Democratic legislature. I just don't know if he'd be able to win the Republican nomination, because he seems too pragmatic. And he appointed a gay person to the state Supreme Court!

Love this schtick. It's a shame those fringe candidates McCain and Romney weren't crazy enough to win the nomination.

But those guys were panderers, or at least ended up that way. McCain wasn't really the same guy after getting worked by Karl Rove in the 2000 South Carolina Primary. He sold out his "maverick" brand to gain the nomination, and it cost him dearly. Romney was a squishy do-anything from the day he ran for governor.

Christie's entire appeal is that he's a guy who isn't afraid of getting his own party worked up. If he starts the pandering parade toward 2016 (which I think will absolutely be required), it negates 90% of what people like about him.

Personally, I don't think he even runs. He strikes me as a guy that wants a sure thing if he's going to risk his brand, and there's nothing remotely sure about winning in 2016, even if Hillary doesn't run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Christie. By and large, I think he's been a good governor, and he's been able to get a lot of legislation passed with a Democratic legislature. I just don't know if he'd be able to win the Republican nomination, because he seems too pragmatic. And he appointed a gay person to the state Supreme Court!

Love this schtick. It's a shame those fringe candidates McCain and Romney weren't crazy enough to win the nomination.

But those guys were panderers, or at least ended up that way. McCain wasn't really the same guy after getting worked by Karl Rove in the 2000 South Carolina Primary. He sold out his "maverick" brand to gain the nomination, and it cost him dearly. Romney was a squishy do-anything from the day he ran for governor.

Christie's entire appeal is that he's a guy who isn't afraid of getting his own party worked up. If he starts the pandering parade toward 2016 (which I think will absolutely be required), it negates 90% of what people like about him.

Personally, I don't think he even runs. He strikes me as a guy that wants a sure thing if he's going to risk his brand, and there's nothing remotely sure about winning in 2016, even if Hillary doesn't run.

Like I said, love the schtick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Christie. By and large, I think he's been a good governor, and he's been able to get a lot of legislation passed with a Democratic legislature. I just don't know if he'd be able to win the Republican nomination, because he seems too pragmatic. And he appointed a gay person to the state Supreme Court!

Love this schtick. It's a shame those fringe candidates McCain and Romney weren't crazy enough to win the nomination.

But those guys were panderers, or at least ended up that way. McCain wasn't really the same guy after getting worked by Karl Rove in the 2000 South Carolina Primary. He sold out his "maverick" brand to gain the nomination, and it cost him dearly. Romney was a squishy do-anything from the day he ran for governor.

Christie's entire appeal is that he's a guy who isn't afraid of getting his own party worked up. If he starts the pandering parade toward 2016 (which I think will absolutely be required), it negates 90% of what people like about him.

Personally, I don't think he even runs. He strikes me as a guy that wants a sure thing if he's going to risk his brand, and there's nothing remotely sure about winning in 2016, even if Hillary doesn't run.

Like I said, love the schtick.

Reality makes great schtick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is the ONLY Republican with a shot of winning. Naturally the Tea Party types hate him because he's (1) not crazy (2) believes in treating Obama and the Democrats with respect and civility. He's the closest thing we have to Alan Alda's character from The West Wing.

Personally I'd prefer Huntsman, but he has no shot. So I'll gladly vote for Christie if given the chance.

I'd really like to see Huntsman run again. And a Christie/Huntsman ticket would be pretty intriguing.

:thumbup: big fan of Huntsman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Christie. By and large, I think he's been a good governor, and he's been able to get a lot of legislation passed with a Democratic legislature. I just don't know if he'd be able to win the Republican nomination, because he seems too pragmatic. And he appointed a gay person to the state Supreme Court!

Love this schtick. It's a shame those fringe candidates McCain and Romney weren't crazy enough to win the nomination.

But those guys were panderers, or at least ended up that way. McCain wasn't really the same guy after getting worked by Karl Rove in the 2000 South Carolina Primary. He sold out his "maverick" brand to gain the nomination, and it cost him dearly. Romney was a squishy do-anything from the day he ran for governor.

Christie's entire appeal is that he's a guy who isn't afraid of getting his own party worked up. If he starts the pandering parade toward 2016 (which I think will absolutely be required), it negates 90% of what people like about him.

Personally, I don't think he even runs. He strikes me as a guy that wants a sure thing if he's going to risk his brand, and there's nothing remotely sure about winning in 2016, even if Hillary doesn't run.

What is he really risking? He's golden in NJ and can make millions on tv whenever he wants. If Romney can win the nomination so can Christie even if he sticks to his guns. Their will be 2-3 Ted Cruz's running for the Republican nom and if Christie stays his course he will beat that fractured group. He will get the fundraising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Christie has been a terrible governor and I hope he leaves for DC for this reason. The Wall Street money owns this state's political process so it's really out of our hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So should I gamble my life savings on this?

Edited by Riversco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is the ONLY Republican with a shot of winning. Naturally the Tea Party types hate him because he's (1) not crazy (2) believes in treating Obama and the Democrats with respect and civility. He's the closest thing we have to Alan Alda's character from The West Wing.

Personally I'd prefer Huntsman, but he has no shot. So I'll gladly vote for Christie if given the chance.

I'd really like to see Huntsman run again. And a Christie/Huntsman ticket would be pretty intriguing.

Why? So they can roll back as much of the progress that we've made socially and economically these last few years?

We can all agree that Christie and Huntsman are head and shoulders above the Paul, Cruz, Palin, Huckabee freaks who are current Republican heroes. But their campaigns will look very much like Romney's did in 2012, because although they are more reasonable in their tactics, in large part the Christies and Huntsmans agree with the Cruzes, Palins, and Pauls from a political philosophical standpoint.

:lmao:

ummmm....yeah :goodposting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rand Paul is a deeper and more complex person that most give him credit for. It's an insult to Paul for Palin and Cruz to be mentioned in the same breath with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rand Paul is a deeper and more complex person that most give him credit for. It's an insult to Paul for Palin and Cruz to be mentioned in the same breath with him.

Kind of hard to really buy into this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True Fact: After the Republican primary, when Chris Christie has to trot out on his giant cankles in front of the American public, smeared from head to toe in 67 lbs of KooKCream, he will not be so incredibly attractive and sensual any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christie or Huntsman could be good GOP candidates. Until the Rs figure this out and dump the tea party line the Ds will be in power in the White House and senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rand Paul is a deeper and more complex person that most give him credit for. It's an insult to Paul for Palin and Cruz to be mentioned in the same breath with him.

He did a fantastic job of hiding this "complexity" during this last round of "negotiations". I mean, he even made sure his actions covered that up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True Fact: After the Republican primary, when Chris Christie has to trot out on his giant cankles in front of the American public, smeared from head to toe in 67 lbs of KooKCream, he will not be so incredibly attractive and sensual any more.

Yep. Just ask Mitt Romney. All those debates, held during the winter months with plenty of eyeballs on the cable news channels hosting the debates. "Moving to the right during the primaries" means moving further than a candidate had to just a few elections ago, and now gets watched by the middle too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I don't think he even runs. He strikes me as a guy that wants a sure thing if he's going to risk his brand, and there's nothing remotely sure about winning in 2016, even if Hillary doesn't run.

Perhaps Yankee23Fan will correct me, but I don't remember his first governorship run as a "sure-thing".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what happened to Rubio in this mix? Not that I care for him but does he strike a balance with the tea party and mainstream republicans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not a super political person, but I for one hope he runs just so I can watch him call everyone stupid during the debates. Late night gold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what happened to Rubio in this mix? Not that I care for him but does he strike a balance with the tea party and mainstream republicans?

he drank some water, so he's out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.