Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 106

Thread: Republicans Say Chris Christie Is Dead To Them After He Opts For Special Election

  1. #21
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,436
    Post Thanks / Like
    More lib/crypto-liberal nonsense about Santorum and suchlike, GOP rank and file see through the sham of self-centered Christie from his speech at the convention to his unnecessary tiptoeing through the tulips with the purple lipped rateared dogeater stabbing Romney in the back.

    Exhibit A - Christie wasting $ to ensure his own short term political future and not necessarily boost the GOP with the expen$ive special election where the caretaker just appointed wont run. Giving away a Senate vote is moronic.

    In general, GOPers are happy to have him run NJ as long as he likes but he is now persona non grata on a national level.

    Booker? A semi-fresh face but has done little politically - Newark is still a by and large a rat's nest - machine politics and cultural decay business as usual in Essex and NJ - amazingly still more accomplished than B. Hussein and thats not saying much

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/14/co...lebrity-mayor/
    Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 06-10-2013 at 10:58 AM.

  2. #22
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,874
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    I'm not a big Christie fan, but Cruz is an absolute joke. The guy hasn't done anything yet he's a hero to whom? Desperation makes Cruz relevant to certain groups only.
    Oh, look, one of our resident hardcore liberals doesn't like Cruz.

    Whats next on the breaking news front, rain is wet?

    Desperation is voting for Christie and hoping to out liberal the liberals.

    Principle is voting for Cruz.

    Won't matter either way, both will get crushed by Clinton IMO.

  3. #23
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,783
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Oh, look, one of our resident hardcore liberals doesn't like Cruz.

    Whats next on the breaking news front, rain is wet?

    Desperation is voting for Christie and hoping to out liberal the liberals.

    Principle is voting for Cruz.

    Won't matter either way, both will get crushed by Clinton IMO.
    When you start a job, you don't walk in and tell everyone "I'm the chosen one, watch and learn".

  4. #24
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,676
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    It's not his position on "social issues" that make him a liberal.

    He simply IS a liberal.

    You backhendedly bemoan Cruz, but Cruz is 100 times the Conservative, on fiscal, governance and defense issues than Christie.

    Just be honest, you're a big government liberal Republican who likes guys who fit that bill, and you (like the dems) loathe anyone related to a Tea party/small limited Government position.

    And again, expalin how you think a moderate N.E. liberal (R) is ever going to beat any actual Liberal in a Presdential election. If you lose every time, it dosn;t matter how good you "could" be as President.
    What you are saying simply isn't true. You are trying to assign beliefs to another person which is an exercise in futility. I like Cruz a lot and I most definitely sympathize with many TEA Party positions. Loved Alan West as a Politician as well as guys like Rubio. I personally don't see Rand Paul as "The President" however as he is a bit too ideological for my taste but I'd support him over Obama in a heartbeat. I don't see how Christie is a liberal in any sense. He cut spending in NJ and successfully took on the public sector unions. He has always been pro-life and he isn't a slimy BS'er like the vast majority of liberals are.

  5. #25
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,436
    Post Thanks / Like
    Christie - pro gay marriage, pro-illegal alien, pro-Obamacare (he needs teh $ to pay for FamilyCare) anti-2nd amendment + other inane positions, taking $ from lib donors....not a liberal!

  6. #26
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,783
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    Christie - pro gay marriage, pro-illegal alien, pro-Obamacare (he needs teh $ to pay for FamilyCare) anti-2nd amendment + other inane positions, taking $ from lib donors....not a liberal!
    This thread shows how sad the GOP really is and will remain.

  7. #27
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,874
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    What you are saying simply isn't true. You are trying to assign beliefs to another person which is an exercise in futility.
    I'd call it an exercise in observation. I DO read what you and our other residents write, you know.

    I don't see how Christie is a liberal in any sense.
    Then you're not paying attention, and really....I doubt you're not paying attention Chiefy.

    More likely, you simply do not see liberalism for what it is and because of who you are. N.E. "Conservativism" is Moderate-Liberalism in most red states. To win a place like NJ, an (R) needs to give in on so many conservative principles he's simply no longer a conservative in any real way.

    he isn't a slimy BS'er like the vast majority of liberals are.
    Thats certainly up for debate. As is your "beat the Unions" claim. As is his position on a dozen policies and Govt. roles.

    In any event, moot point. He can't win. Nor can Cruz. We're an example why (R) is hosed, we're deeply divided IMO between establishment Big Govt. (R) and Conservative small Govt. (TP) factions who are as at-odds as (R) supposed is with (D).

    (D) is not divided at all. They are a uniform, unified party of far-left thinking, socialist utopian collectivist ideals, and Big Govt-is-the-solution-to-all-problem policy making.

    So (R) will lose in 2016. And probably in 2020 too, barring some major shift.

  8. #28
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,676
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    I'd call it an exercise in observation. I DO read what you and our other residents write, you know.



    Then you're not paying attention, and really....I doubt you're not paying attention Chiefy.

    More likely, you simply do not see liberalism for what it is and because of who you are. N.E. "Conservativism" is Moderate-Liberalism in most red states. To win a place like NJ, an (R) needs to give in on so many conservative principles he's simply no longer a conservative in any real way.



    Thats certainly up for debate. As is your "beat the Unions" claim. As is his position on a dozen policies and Govt. roles.

    In any event, moot point. He can't win. Nor can Cruz. We're an example why (R) is hosed, we're deeply divided IMO between establishment Big Govt. (R) and Conservative small Govt. (TP) factions who are as at-odds as (R) supposed is with (D).

    (D) is not divided at all. They are a uniform, unified party of far-left thinking, socialist utopian collectivist ideals, and Big Govt-is-the-solution-to-all-problem policy making.

    So (R) will lose in 2016. And probably in 2020 too, barring some major shift.
    I don't really disagree with anything you said here. The infighting within the GOP is a big problem right now. Hopefully a candidate will come along that can unite the factions but at the moment Hillary is looking good for the "war on women" campaign of 2016.

    I consider myself much more libertarian/NE Republican than traditional conservative for sure. If that constitutes a moderate liberal in red states, so be it. I'm pro choice and I don't have much issue with Gays marrying. I strongly support Gun Rights but the idea of a background check like the ones we have here in NY State for gun purchases does not bother me all that much. I would be strongly against any sort of gun registry however and I happily cancelled my subscription to the Journal News when they printed the article "outing" gun permit holders.

  9. #29
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,874
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    I don't really disagree with anything you said here. The infighting within the GOP is a big problem right now. Hopefully a candidate will come along that can unite the factions but at the moment Hillary is looking good for the "war on women" campaign of 2016.

    I consider myself much more libertarian/NE Republican than traditional conservative for sure. If that constitutes a moderate liberal in red states, so be it. I'm pro choice and I don't have much issue with Gays marrying. I strongly support Gun Rights but the idea of a background check like the ones we have here in NY State for gun purchases does not bother me all that much. I would be strongly against any sort of gun registry however and I happily cancelled my subscription to the Journal News when they printed the article "outing" gun permit holders.
    Just look at this thread.

    You, me and Flushing, three nominal (R) voters.

    You and I cannot agree at all on Christie, despite both of us claiming "libertarian" leanings in our (R) flavor.

    Flushing loathes both os us as Cryto-Liberals.

    Three (R) voters, not a single shared vote.

    You really think cr, IntelligentJetsFan and Buster won't be unified in who THEY'LL be voting for in 2016?

    The right is fractured hard, perhaps permanently. I see that only widening, as the core social issue divide only gets worse, and a portion of the Tea party (R) side moves further from the old school traditional (R) side.

    In a perfect world, they're be three parties or more, not two. But at least for now, (D) stands unified, and (R) is fractured in two.

  10. #30
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,676
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post

    More likely, you simply do not see liberalism for what it is and because of who you are. N.E. "Conservativism" is Moderate-Liberalism in most red states. To win a place like NJ, an (R) needs to give in on so many conservative principles he's simply no longer a conservative in any real way.


    .
    I want to address this one point. This idea of conservative principles and people giving up on them to get elected is unfair. I want politicians with common sense that do what they believe is in the best interest of their constituency. This idea that anyone that doesn't follow the "conservative principles" rule book is not fit to govern or lead is silly to me. The Republican Party was literally founded to be the party that combats slavery. Republican founding principles include a commitment to a strong and fair free market economy. Teddy Roosevelt took on the trusts and was the first true champoin of the middle class. He like Reagan believed in strength through military and economic power as well as seeing the USA as a global force for good. These are principles I can get behind. I don't like government promotion of social issues at all.

  11. #31
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,676
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Just look at this thread.

    You, me and Flushing, three nominal (R) voters.

    You and I cannot agree at all on Christie, despite both of us claiming "libertarian" leanings in our (R) flavor.

    Flushing loathes both os us as Cryto-Liberals.

    Three (R) voters, not a single shared vote.

    You really think cr, IntelligentJetsFan and Buster won't be unified in who THEY'LL be voting for in 2016?

    The right is fractured hard, perhaps permanently. I see that only widening, as the core social issue divide only gets worse, and a portion of the Tea party (R) side moves further from the old school traditional (R) side.

    In a perfect world, they're be three parties or more, not two. But at least for now, (D) stands unified, and (R) is fractured in two.
    I don't disagree though I'd be suprised if you, me and Flushing wouldn't vote for any one of Cruz, Rubio, Paul or Christie over Hillary.

  12. #32
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    An election was not necessary. Christie could have appointed anyone he wanted to assume the Senate seat until the term of that seat ended.
    That is exactly what happened in SC when Jim DeMint resigned and Nikki Haley appointed Tim Scott as Senator. In turn getting Mark Sanford the House seat.

    To "appear" fair, Christie decided to hold an election now. That fairness insures his reelection as governor.

    It also insures he is dead meat as a Republican national candidate. There is no chance that any state in the South would go for him. Nor many conservative states anywhere. He is already considered an Obama kiss up.

  13. #33
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,783
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    An election was not necessary. Christie could have appointed anyone he wanted to assume the Senate seat until the term of that seat ended.
    That is exactly what happened in SC when Jim DeMint resigned and Nikki Haley appointed Tim Scott as Senator. In turn getting Mark Sanford the House seat.

    To "appear" fair, Christie decided to hold an election now. That fairness insures his reelection as governor.

    It also insures he is dead meat as a Republican national candidate. There is no chance that any state in the South would go for him. Nor many conservative states anywhere. He is already considered an Obama kiss up.
    The GOP doesn't have anyone (yet) who could beat Hillary and that's just sad.

  14. #34
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,874
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    The GOP doesn't have anyone (yet) who could beat Hillary and that's just sad.
    Sad, eh?

    By all means, tell us oh swami of politcs, what is the platform one could bring to the table that would best Ms. Clinton?

  15. #35
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,783
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Sad, eh?

    By all means, tell us oh swami of politcs, what is the platform one could bring to the table that would best Ms. Clinton?
    It is sad, our country is a better place when we have good politicians who are challenged by legitimate competition, it's a good thing, no?

    No one thought anyone in the Democratic party would be able to defeat Hillary a few years ago and looked what happened there.

    Christie could be a legit candidate, if his own party doesn't destroy him first.

  16. #36
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    The GOP doesn't have anyone (yet) who could beat Hillary and that's just sad.

    Hillary is essentially unbeatable. Two reasons. Her husband and she is a women. Last time she would have beaten anyone except Obama.

    Repubs have nobody. Their only game plan is to hold the House pick up a little in the Senate and stalemate things to prevent TOO much damage.

  17. #37
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,874
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    It is sad, our country is a better place when we have good politicians who are challenged by legitimate competition, it's a good thing, no?
    Given your biases, I'd question almost every word you used here.

    For example, many on the other side think someone like Cruz would fill the "good politician" descriptor, and would say he provides "legitimate competition" on the (R) side.

    You clearly don't, and wouldn't agree not because it may or may not be true, but because of your own political bias.

    In the course of political debate here, it cannot be escaped that you would want to see the most liberal (R) possible run, a. because it means you have a better chance to win, and b. because if you were to lose you'd still have the most liberal, i.e. least objectionable, (R) in office.

    So with that said, it certainly colors how observers should take your support for Christie IMO.

    No one thought anyone in the Democratic party would be able to defeat Hillary a few years ago and looked what happened there.

    Christie could be a legit candidate, if his own party doesn't destroy him first.
    TLDR: you cannot give me a platform that could defeat a (D) come 2016.

    I'm all ears as to this magic policy platform that (R) can run on that will win. I've yet to hear anyone be able to explain it as yet.
    Last edited by Churchill; 06-10-2013 at 12:40 PM.

  18. #38
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,289
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Also, could we please ban whichever idiot told SG3 there's a politics forum? It isn't enough that we have to put up with his lame rants on the main forum?
    lol

    +1 bajillion

    plus: Christie did what was best for his own fat ass, so **** him

  19. #39
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by sg3 View Post
    The way the GOP is now constituted, it is doubtful any R can get elected.

    15 percent evangelical nutjobs
    15 percent teabagger nutjobs
    15 percent old white men who hate minorities

    They won in the 80s when Reagan appealed to working people

    Thrown away now in exchange for massive campaign contributions from corporations

    45 percent ...does two things...selects unelectables in primaries and then watches them get unelected in General Elections.

    Christie could actually have won but he dared, in a crisis, to put the people of his states interest ahead of those of the 45 percent.

    Look for some Ted Cruz type to be nominated
    Apparently 15% of the democratic party demographics are trolls.

  20. #40
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,480
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    I'll have to defer to you on the Law. If it wasn't required, and could hav been held on the normal election day, then thats what he should have donend saved the taxpayer costs.
    Agreed. Still like the guy overall, but that was a poor move.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us