View Full Version : So "Bridgegate" Will Destroy Christie's White House Aspirations...
Just for the record I'm no fan of the guy. He another big government RINO who panders to the left and is definitely "anti gun." He's a governor of NJ who is popular with some as a Tony Soprano kinda guy. And he seems to be vindictive and spiteful on occasion.
What is going to kill his Presidential aspirations and has the media treating him like he drowned the secretary he was banging on the side in a Chappaquiddick channel and then didn't report it until the next day?
Allegedly the NJ Governor ordered or knew about the closing of two of three lanes on the George Washington Bridge in order to inconvenience one man, Mark Sokolich the Mayor of Fort Lee, NJ because he failed to endorse Christie during his re election.
Traffic on the GWB was as a result extremely congested for a four day period. People were incredibly inconvenienced, emergency vehicles were caught up in the shut down putting lives and property at risk and of course any business depending upon a reasonable flow of traffic suffered financially.
People have the right to be upset, outraged and angry. Especially if this was done deliberately as political payback by somebody who presumes to be a public servant.
Meanwhile Hillary Clinton, and others ignored several warnings of terrorist threats on the anniversary of the 9-11 attacks in places like Benghazi. Even most astonishing dozens of U.S. security personnel were removed from Libya in the six months leading up to the attack, in spite of alleged requests to increase personnel levels from American officials on the ground.
According to one of the key witnesses even Ambassador Stevens himself had repeatedly requested more security personnel, but was turned down. (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/top-us-counterterrorism-adviser-john-brennan-in-libya-amid-questions-over-security-missteps/)
On the night of September 11, 2012, a heavily armed group of between 125 and 150 gunmen attacked the American diplomatic mission at Benghazi, in Libya, killing U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and another diplomat. Several hours later in the early morning of the next day, a second assault targeted a nearby CIA annex in a different compound about one mile away, killing two embassy security personnel. Ten others were injured in the attacks.
Initially the Obama Administration, specifically the State Department and the UN reported that the incident was "not terrorism" and that the Benghazi attack emerged from a spontaneous protest against the video.
Hillary Clinton is virtually the defacto Democratic candidate for 2016.
He still appears to be the medias republican false choice the sheeple will and republicans will tell us we have to hold our nose and vote for. Like Romney and Mcain.
George Will has declared Kristie Kreme is done and Jeb Bush is the new front runner...
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
No one gives a rat's ass about that bridge thing. The media, however, drives the debate and will create and fuel the fire to keep it at America's forefront. THIS is why he will be a non-factor. There's a reason the media is fervently under-reporting Benghazi and the IRS issues, and overplaying this bridge thing. I don't give two hoots about Christie, I would not vote for him, but this is how the media destroys a candidate.
This may seem shallow to some, but I don't care how smart the guy might be as I would never vote for somebody that fat. Being that fat says to me that there is something seriously wrong whith somebody that would let themselves get that fat.
And I am hearing the Jeb Bush name also, as well as John Kasich; although, I am not sure it is possible for a 3rd Bush to get elected. But in these 2 guys you have both Florida and Ohio. Maybe if they were both on the ticket - pres and vp - the repubs might stand a chance.
montanadave
02-02-14, 08:44
The next presidential election is more than two and a half years away. In the run-up to the 2012 election, a new GOP "frontrunner" was anointed on a weekly basis during the Republican primary process.
Turn the channel. All this shit will be ancient history by 2016.
Don't worry, the Republican Party and the media will soon trot out another RINO for us to vote for....or NOT!
[QUOTE=austinN4;1847587]This may seem shallow to some, but I don't care how smart the guy might be as I would never vote for somebody that fat. Being that fat says to me that there is something seriously wrong whith somebody that would let themselves get that fat.
A lot of people feel the same way, it's the big, I mean first thing you see.
No one gives a rat's ass about that bridge thing. The media, however, drives the debate and will create and fuel the fire to keep it at America's forefront. THIS is why he will be a non-factor. There's a reason the media is fervently under-reporting Benghazi and the IRS issues, and overplaying this bridge thing. I don't give two hoots about Christie, I would not vote for him, but this is how the media destroys a candidate.
My points exactly. The blatant media political slant is stunning.
This may seem shallow to some, but I don't care how smart the guy might be as I would never vote for somebody that fat. Being that fat says to me that there is something seriously wrong whith somebody that would let themselves get that fat.
And I am hearing the Jeb Bush name also, as well as John Kasich; although, I am not sure it is possible for a 3rd Bush to get elected. But in these 2 guys you have both Florida and Ohio. Maybe if they were both on the ticket - pres and vp - the repubs might stand a chance.
Electing a candidate based upon what they "look like" is pretty much about the same as "voting for the black guy." I understand your point, but if Paul Rand was actually the candidate and he was tipping the scales at 100 lbs. past his ideal weight it would be a non issue.
There are hundreds and hundreds of reasons to not vote for Christie, that he is pretty big doesn't even make the list.
And it's too bad we didn't get Jeb instead of George. I'm certain he would have made a much better President. Sadly because we did have George, I don't think Jeb will stand a chance.
And it's too bad we didn't get Jeb instead of George. I'm certain he would have made a much better President. Sadly because we did have George, I don't think Jeb will stand a chance.
If the last elections have shown anything, it depends on the giveaway. If Jeb Bush can out progressive democrat the progressive democrats and promise amnesty, stimulus, increase in welfare benefits, expansion of food stamps, "fairness" for the middle class, etc. and manage to lie about decreasing spending, the deficit, and the size of government, etc. he has a chance. He also speaks fluent Spanish, which means he can be on Spanish language media.
The current crop of voters have proven themselves to be irresponsible and the worst in several generations as they have the capacity to elect Obama twice; even though the policies had completely failed by the time the 2012 elections came around. Now there's also the institutions to suppress dissent, like the IRS, DOJ, mainstream media, etc. that you have to overcome. You can't compete with a Santa Claus politician that has the machinery of Stalin to insure victory. Today it is all about the promise of free shit.
Electing a candidate based upon what they "look like" is pretty much about the same as "voting for the black guy."
Someone sooner or later has to introduce "race" into the equation and it was not a man of color who did, playing the "race card".
Groan.
First, the Republicans put forth weak candiates...RINOs, unpopular candidates, whatever.
Then, the Republican Party lets the Democrats pick the Republican candidate, thereby ensuring the Dems pick the weakest candidate possible. Instead of defending the candidates and picking the candidate themselves, the Republicans let the Democrat party slander and choose.
Finally, the Republicans let the media beat the candidate up without fighting back.
And the Stupid Party wonders why it loses elections.
Contrast this to how the Dems run a campaign.
The Dems pick a candidate they feel is strongest...not necessarily the candidate is a strong/good politician as a person, but one they can push and use to maximum advantage. Obama is a great example. He's a worthless politician but he's got the qualities (young, hip, black, and can read a speech off a teleprompter like nobody's business) that make it easy to use him as a figurehead to get him elected. They don't give one rat's ass about Obama, but he is a tool for them. They purposefully chose him over Hillary in 08 because while she was the better politician, she was the weaker person (second Clinton, white, old) so they discarded her in favor of Obama.
Then once the candidate is chosen, the Democrats unite behind that candidate and march in lockstep to push them into office.
Finally, the Dems get their allies in the MSM to quash negative things about their candidate and highlight positive, popular things.
Hence, you get a well oiled political machine that pushes a chosen person into office with ease.
^^^THIS.^^^
Superb explanation and analysis.
MW
Electing a candidate based upon what they "look like" is pretty much about the same as "voting for the black guy."
Hardly! Being a black man or woman does not make you stupid. Getting that fat and staying that fat is just stupid no matter what race you are. And if Rand Paul was that fat I would not vote for him either. Not sure what Christe weighs now but at one point it was reported at 350+ on a man reported to be 5'11". That is just flat stupid and irresposible and I don't want that person in the WH no matter what his name is.
[QUOTE=SteyrAUG;1847669]...that he is pretty big doesn't even make the list.[QUOTE]
THE LIST - I didn't know there was an official list. I think what you probably meant to say was it didn't make YOUR list. Sorry to disappoint you, but it did make mine.
I could not care less how a candidate looks or how much they weigh. This is not Dancing With The Stars, American Idol, etc. A candidate's political and social views are all that matter to me. Christie sucks because he is a big government RINO who seemingly cares little about the Constitution.
Someone sooner or later has to introduce "race" into the equation and it was not a man of color who did, playing the "race card".
Groan.
Nobody played the "race card." I only pointed out that electing people based upon what the "look like" rather than their positions on the issues is stupid.
I only pointed out that electing people based upon what the "look like" rather than their positions on the issues is stupid.
It is not about "looking" fat, it is about being morbidly obese and the health issues that go with it. Obese starts with a BMI of 30. MO starts at a BMI of 40. The guy was off the chart with a BMI of 49!
Hardly! Being a black man or woman does not make you stupid. Getting that fat and staying that fat is just stupid no matter what race you are. And if Rand Paul was that fat I would not vote for him either. Not sure what Christe weighs now but at one point it was reported at 350+ on a man reported to be 5'11". That is just flat stupid and irresposible and I don't want that person in the WH no matter what his name is.
[QUOTE=SteyrAUG;1847669]...that he is pretty big doesn't even make the list.[QUOTE]
THE LIST - I didn't know there was an official list. I think what you probably meant to say was it didn't make YOUR list. Sorry to disappoint you, but it did make mine.
You missed my point entirely.
He's a fat pos.
Screw these rhinos.
I could not care less how a candidate looks or how much they weigh. This is not Dancing With The Stars, American Idol, etc. A candidate's political and social views are all that matter to me. Christie sucks because he is a big government RINO who seemingly cares little about the Constitution.
Thank You for getting it. Not everyone stays 125 lbs. all their life.
Larry Vickers is a bigger guy than he was 20 years ago. I don't think that makes him stupid. I think that makes him middle aged and not nearly in the same condition he was when he was younger. If Larry Vickers ran for ANY office I'd vote for him in a second.
Obviously Christie isn't a big guy because he was a "used to work out every day like you can't understand" member of the US military but middle age gets most people. But voting for people, or not voting for people because of height, weight, race or things like that is...well...stupid.
It is true that just as people eat with their eyes, they vote with their eyes. This has been borne out in polling and sociology research. Not to say an obese candidate can't or won't win (see Christie), but rather, is does influence how people see a candidate and vote.
It is not about "looking" fat, it is about being morbidly obese and the health issues that go with it. Obese starts with a BMI of 30. MO starts at a BMI of 40. The guy was off the chart with a BMI of 49!
BMI is BS. If you put in Bruce Lee's height and weight, due to his muscle weight, he is an overweight person. Now again, I'm not defending Christie's weight. And I can sorta understand your "no will power" objection to an overweight person.
But when it comes to political decisions, I think that's about last on my list right under "dresses funny so obviously makes bizarre decisions."
It is true that just as people eat with their eyes, they vote with their eyes. This has been borne out in polling and sociology research. Not to say an obese candidate can't or won't win (see Christie), but rather, is does influence how people see a candidate and vote.
The majority of Americans are overweight, so if they don't vote for Christie because of how he looks, are they all hypocrites? In American Idol politics that may be something that counts against him, but the loudmouth, obnoxious, personality would probably offset that with the same voters.
Bad policy is a more valid reason to dismiss him, as it is for Obama. As Romney was seen, even by the liberal media, as "good looking", how did it not benefit him?
If you put in Bruce Lee's height and weight, due to his muscle weight, he is an overweight person.
Put him on the ballot and I'll vote for him. And since you brought it up, what was his BMI?
Also there is a huge (pun intended) difference between simply being overweight and off the chart morbidly obese, a distinction that some here don't seem to get.
Put him on the ballot and I'll vote for him. And since you brought it up, what was his BMI?
Also there is a huge (pun intended) difference between simply being overweight and off the chart morbidly obese, a distinction that some here don't seem to get.
I don't recall, but several years ago there was some online BMI website somebody on TOS was using to prove most Americans were overweight (not something I was personally disputing) and I looked up Lee's height and weight (short guy who was 99% concentrated muscle) and the website categorized him as either "overweight" or "obese" (I can't recall). And before it becomes and issue, I'm sure there is some variation between the results of various online BMI websites. But BMI typically wants everyone to look like a distance runner. If you have any serious muscle development you can end up being in the "overweight" column even if you are a gymnast.
And I think everyone here does understand the distinction between "overweight" and "morbidly obese" and we even understand the basis for your objection. We just don't have the same level of concern regarding that criteria when it comes to voting.
If Christie was a true fiscal conservative who understood and defended the Constitution, not only would I vote for him in a second, I'd buy him a hot dog, nachos and a beer.
About a week ago the media came to a horrible realization. If they kill Christie now they will not be able to kill him later in 2016. The media is now dialing down the heat on Christie. I have heard many of the talking heads openly dismayed that they don't have an Establishment Gop if Christie is forced out.
And I think everyone here does understand the distinction between "overweight" and "morbidly obese".............
Given the references to him as merely overweight by some in this thread I am not so sure of that. Also given that he is not a true fiscal conservative who understoods and defends the Constitution, and who is morbidly obese, it would seem we know all we need to know about him
More importantly, forum, who are the good candidtates that also might be able to win the election and save us from 4 to 8 years of Hillary?
Given the references to him as merely overweight by some in this thread I am not so sure of that. Also given that he is not a true fiscal conservative who understoods and defends the Constitution, and who is morbidly obese, it would seem we know all we need to know about him
I think people are just using general rather than clinical terms. And you are correct given his political stance, that is all we really need to know.
More importantly, forum, who are the good candidtates that also might be able to win the election and save us from 4 to 8 years of Hillary?
Come up with the answer to that question and you might very well save the nation.
First, the Republicans put forth weak candiates...RINOs, unpopular candidates, whatever.
Then, the Republican Party lets the Democrats pick the Republican candidate, thereby ensuring the Dems pick the weakest candidate possible. Instead of defending the candidates and picking the candidate themselves, the Republicans let the Democrat party slander and choose.
Finally, the Republicans let the media beat the candidate up without fighting back.
And the Stupid Party wonders why it loses elections.
Contrast this to how the Dems run a campaign.
The Dems pick a candidate they feel is strongest...not necessarily the candidate is a strong/good politician as a person, but one they can push and use to maximum advantage. Obama is a great example. He's a worthless politician but he's got the qualities (young, hip, black, and can read a speech off a teleprompter like nobody's business) that make it easy to use him as a figurehead to get him elected. They don't give one rat's ass about Obama, but he is a tool for them. They purposefully chose him over Hillary in 08 because while she was the better politician, she was the weaker person (second Clinton, white, old) so they discarded her in favor of Obama.
Then once the candidate is chosen, the Democrats unite behind that candidate and march in lockstep to push them into office.
Finally, the Dems get their allies in the MSM to quash negative things about their candidate and highlight positive, popular things.
Hence, you get a well oiled political machine that pushes a chosen person into office with ease.
About a week ago the media came to a horrible realization. If they kill Christie now they will not be able to kill him later in 2016. The media is now dialing down the heat on Christie. I have heard many of the talking heads openly dismayed that they don't have an Establishment Gop if Christie is forced out.
Yep. The bridge BS was just to weaken him for any moderates that were considering voting for him. He will still get the republican nomination and go against Hillary and lose.
Mark my words we will get 8 years of Clinton because the GOP is dead, they just don't know it...sadly neither do the GOP voters...
Yep. The bridge BS was just to weaken him for any moderates that were considering voting for him. He will still get the republican nomination and go against Hillary and lose.
Mark my words we will get 8 years of Clinton because the GOP is dead, they just don't know it...sadly neither do the GOP voters...
That's my fear. And it will be because nobody cares that Clinton got some people cared in some place they can't pronounce or find on a map. It will be because they think the guy running for the GOP has a funny haircut, acts like a nerd or is fat. Oh and FINALLY they will be able to help elect the first WOMAN PRESIDENT and participate in that historical landmark event and somehow gain some personal sense of significance from doing so.
Too bad the GOP doesn't have a hip Asian guy who they can run in 2016. Maybe he could learn to rap, snowboard or play the saxophone. If he could learn how to do James Brown's "good foot" he'd win by a landslide. A dancing Asian President with old school soul would be so awesome, I can already see the youtube videos going viral and setting new records.
I'll be the first to admit they may not be the BEST people but we could do a lot worse than Bobby Jindal (LA), Jeff Duncan (SC), Paul Ryan (WI), Allen West (FL),...a few others...
All of which have not a chance in hell in getting the Republican nomination.
Also, who else other than Chris Christie has either been ID'd as a potential candidate or has announced they will be seeking the office? I haven't heard mention of anyone but him.
I'll be the first to admit they may not be the BEST people but we could do a lot worse than Bobby Jindal (LA), Jeff Duncan (SC), Paul Ryan (WI), Allen West (FL),...a few others...
All of which have not a chance in hell in getting the Republican nomination.
Also, who else other than Chris Christie has either been ID'd as a potential candidate or has announced they will be seeking the office? I haven't heard mention of anyone but him.
Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, and many others have been mentioned as raising money to have a go.
Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, and many others have been mentioned as raising money to have a go.
And it's way too early in the game to blow your wad and have people start digging in your dirt and mischaracterizing you. This is why even Hillary hasn't officially made an announcement. To play this stupid game you come in at the last possible moment after everyone has already pissed on each others shoes and demonstrated they are retards and play the part of the "great unknown maybe" guy. Then all you have to do is try to keep your mouth shut, not say anything too committal regarding stances or issues and do your very best to keep everyone from pissing on your shoes.
And it's way too early in the game to blow your wad and have people start digging in your dirt and mischaracterizing you. This is why even Hillary hasn't officially made an announcement. To play this stupid game you come in at the last possible moment after everyone has already pissed on each others shoes and demonstrated they are retards and play the part of the "great unknown maybe" guy. Then all you have to do is try to keep your mouth shut, not say anything too committal regarding stances or issues and do your very best to keep everyone from pissing on your shoes.
I agree completely. The GOP needs to examine the past failures and learn from them.
I agree completely. The GOP needs to examine the past failures and learn from them.
Wanna bet that they won't?
Wanna bet that we are going to get another weak tea candidate, just like McCain and Romney?
Wanna bet that that candidate is going to be worse than Romney or McCain would have been?
The majority of Americans are overweight, so if they don't vote for Christie because of how he looks, are they all hypocrites? In American Idol politics that may be something that counts against him, but the loudmouth, obnoxious, personality would probably offset that with the same voters.
Bad policy is a more valid reason to dismiss him, as it is for Obama. As Romney was seen, even by the liberal media, as "good looking", how did it not benefit him?
I don't disagree with you in the least. But, like I said, even though it influences it may or may not be the not the sole reason for voting for/aginst someone. Sure, Romney was a good lookin' guy (is?), but he wasn't Obama, and he wasn't a dem, so the media was not going to play that way. To be sure some people voted FOR Romney because he wasn't "that black guy." Rascist? Sure, but the looks thing cuts both ways. There are people who won't vote for Christie because he is fat, there are people who won't vote for Obama because he is black.
Wanna bet that they won't?
Wanna bet that we are going to get another weak tea candidate, just like McCain and Romney?
Wanna bet that that candidate is going to be worse than Romney or McCain would have been?
...and the GOP cycle of self-defeatest straegy will continue......
All of which have not a chance in hell in getting the Republican nomination.
Or of winning the election even if they did.
Also, who else other than Chris Christie has either been ID'd as a potential candidate.................
Nobody has announced, and they won't until after the mid=term elections, but as I said earlier in this thread, I have heard Jeb Bush and John Kasic meantioned. Not sure either could win.
Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, and many others have been mentioned as raising money to have a go.
I don't see anybody on this list that I think could win against Hillary, but it is still way early. And I sure as heck don't want Slick Rick in the WH.
I don't see anybody on this list that I think could win against Hillary, but it is still way early. And I sure as heck don't want Slick Rick in the WH.
If Rand Paul loses to Hillary Clinton in the general election then America really deserves what they get. Much like America deserves Obama now.
As H.L. Menken brilliantly observed, "Democracy is the proposition that the people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
I am much more concerned about Karl Rove and the Gop Establishment defeating Rand Paul than I am about his chances against Hillary.
If Rand Paul loses to Hillary Clinton in the general election then America really deserves what they get. Much like America deserves Obama now.
As H.L. Menken brilliantly observed, "Democracy is the proposition that the people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
I am much more concerned about Karl Rove and the Gop Establishment defeating Rand Paul than I am about his chances against Hillary.
Rove is steering the ship into the rocks: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/02/GOP-War-0n-Conservatives-Backfires
The GOP's broadest group of supporters are conservative at the core. If Rove continues his purge of conservatives to try to make the GOP more like the dems to get elected (I think that is his theory, at least), he is a fool. Offering a competing vision and plan then puts the focus on issues, not personalities or appearances. There hasn't been a clear, coherent case made for conservative values or an alternative plan for America since Reagan. G.W. Bush was elected originally by offering a conservative values message, but this was quickly shed in favor of big government and "moving towards the middle". McCain and Romney were both big government guys who lack conservative credentials and were the candidates that the media and dems picked, and many conservatives simply could not vote for either of them so they just didn't vote.
The GOP's strategists need to take a note fr0om the Reagan playbook, not from Obama's. The problem today is that the "fundamental transformation of America" has happened and I don't know if there is a way to turn it back prior to 2016. Perhaps a GOP controlled Senate in the mid-terms and impeachment would help.
brickboy240
02-03-14, 11:59
The left will just "bridge-gate" the next GOP pick.
This is what happens when your side controls the messaging.
It does not matter if the GOP puts up a moderate or real conservative...the media will fry that person and Hillary will get a cake walk right in to the Oval Office.
When you control the media and the messaging...your candidate does not have to be clean or answer hard questions. They also do not have to worry about whomever the right runs against them. Their minions in media will work together to wreck that person's chances. Rand Paul, Jeb Bush....does not matter. The media will run this person through the ringer while all the time protecting Hillary. Remember they had debate moderator helping their side in the debates. the fix is in...right now.
The left has figured out that this how they will win and hold power.
Where we go from here...well..that is anybody's guess.
-brickboy240
The left will just "bridge-gate" the next GOP pick.
This is what happens when your side controls the messaging.
It does not matter if the GOP puts up a moderate or real conservative...the media will fry that person and Hillary will get a cake walk right in to the Oval Office.
When you control the media and the messaging...your candidate does not have to be clean or answer hard questions. They also do not have to worry about whomever the right runs against them. Their minions in media will work together to wreck that person's chances. Rand Paul, Jeb Bush....does not matter. The media will run this person through the ringer while all the time protecting Hillary. Remember they had debate moderator helping their side in the debates. the fix is in...right now.
The left has figured out that this how they will win and hold power.
Where we go from here...well..that is anybody's guess.
-brickboy240
Yep. The GOP needs to get vicious and fight fire with fire. Pick somebody with fiery passion and a spine that's gonna go on the offensive and rattle the Dem's cages. Debate? Go to the debate and burn it down- control the fight.
Instead we get the GOP going "well we have to be polite and meek" and they get steamrolled. No objecting to the steamrolling, no fighting back, no going on the offensive...having a spine is "beneath" the GOP.
They could have done a pretty good attempt at shredding Obama during the past two election cycles. Might not have won but showing backbone would have been a lot better than laying down and giving up. The GOP needs to stop being a sick elephant.
Doc Safari
02-03-14, 12:57
I never thought I'd hear my self typing this, but I'm GLAD Christie is going down in flames, and I really don't care what the reason is. I always thought the SOB was too liberal-friendly. A RINO is a true conservative next to Christie. If his demise is due to a bridge scandal or too many donuts, I could care less.
Have a nice fall, Humpty Dumpty.
ONE down, HOW MANY to go?
....the looks thing cuts both ways....there are people who won't vote for Obama because he is black.
And that "cuts both ways" thing means there are also people who voted for Obama because he is black.
I don't see anybody on this list that I think could win against Hillary, but it is still way early. And I sure as heck don't want Slick Rick in the WH.
So exactly what type of candidate do you think could beat Hillary then? Why is that twat so invincible to you? That bitch has more issues than National Geographic!
So exactly what type of candidate do you think could beat Hillary then? Why is that twat so invincible to you? That bitch has more issues than National Geographic!
Before you read my answer below, go back to Avenger29's post 13 in this thread and read it first as my answer will make more sense.
OK, done? Here you go:
I don't think the current GOP can field any candidate that can beat Hillary because it is too fractured. And some of its would be voters get butt hurt that their favorite didn't win the primary so the throw away their vote to make a statement, or they don't vote at all because they don't like the primary winner. This is just stupid, IMO, a really dumb strategy. If you read Avanger's post I think he outlined it pretty well what the Dems do, and the GOP and its voters need to startdong the same.
brickboy240
02-03-14, 15:23
The reason Hillary will win is not because she is the better candidate. It has nothing to do with the load of baggage she has, either. The type of candidate the RNC decides to run has nothing to do with it either.
(plan on the RNC replacing Christie with some other moderate mushball with no guts...like Jeb Bush)
Hillary will not win because she is invincible or because she has better ideas or policies. In fact, her policies are a mirror image of Barack Obama's policies.
Hillary will win because the left controls the media and messaging in American society. When you control the media and messaging you win...plain and simple.
Other than Fox News Channel and a few AM talk outlets...Hillary and the left have every other tv network, cable tv networks, magazines, newspapers and Hollywood out there not only stumping for her but doing their damned best to make the person with the "R" after their name look like an extremist, xenophobe, racist, religious kook, tyrant or unappealing to John Q. Public 24-7.
Honestly...I don't know HOW conservatives can win. The fractured nature of the GOP has little to do with it. Without the army that Hillary has stumping for her...it does not matter who you run...does it?
-brickboy240
The fractured nature of the GOP has little to do with it.
Yes it does, it makes it worse.
....or they don't vote at all because they don't like the primary winner. This is just stupid, IMO, a really dumb strategy. If you read Avanger's post I think he outlined it pretty well what the Dems do, and the GOP and its voters need to startdong the same.
Well, my advice to Republican primary voters is this (not saying it applies to you personally): vote your conscience in the primary. Forget that loser, spineless notion of "electability" (I get nauseated just saying that word) and vote your conscience. If that happens we don't get a McCain, a Dole, a Romney, or God forbid a Christie. Don't go into the primary polls wetting your pants and wringing your hands wondering "Oh my oh my, who will the brainless masses most likely vote for?" Do that and then expect the rest of us to close ranks and vote for your sorry-ass RINO choice? Not happening. The 2008 and 2012 elections should serve as perfect examples of what happens when you don't use your balls in the primary booth.
The reason Hillary will win is not because she is the better candidate. It has nothing to do with the load of baggage she has, either. The type of candidate the RNC decides to run has nothing to do with it either.
(plan on the RNC replacing Christie with some other moderate mushball with no guts...like Jeb Bush)
Hillary will not win because she is invincible or because she has better ideas or policies. In fact, her policies are a mirror image of Barack Obama's policies.
Hillary will win because the left controls the media and messaging in American society. When you control the media and messaging you win...plain and simple.
Other than Fox News Channel and a few AM talk outlets...Hillary and the left have every other tv network, cable tv networks, magazines, newspapers and Hollywood out there not only stumping for her but doing their damned best to make the person with the "R" after their name look like an extremist, xenophobe, racist, religious kook, tyrant or unappealing to John Q. Public 24-7.
Honestly...I don't know HOW conservatives can win. The fractured nature of the GOP has little to do with it. Without the army that Hillary has stumping for her...it does not matter who you run...does it?
-brickboy240
As I said in another thread, the electorate is the problem. Sure, Twatlery will have the media on her side but it's the jackass morons who go to the polls who will be our ultimate undoing.
The Dems know they'll never win over an overwhelming majority of voters. They constantly strive for that 51st vote out of a hundred. To an extent the Republicans do this too but the Dems are better at it. Remember, ~ 50% of Americans have no federal income tax burden and 1 out of 6 is on foodstamps. Think that's not by design?
Yes it does, it makes it worse.
Here's something to think about: Rand Paul and Ted Cruz attract largely the same kind of conservative voters. They both rank (or did until recently) just behind Christie. So, one would conclude that Christie is the "chosen one", right? Not so fast....he is the single candidate with the most votes. However, consolidate the Paul/Cruz crowd (again, VERY similar folks) and you blow lardass out of the water. In fact, it's not even close.
That is the problem with the Republican field right now as far as being fractured is concerned.
Here's something to think about: Rand Paul and Ted Cruz attract largely the same kind of conservative voters. They both rank (or did until recently) just behind Christie. So, one would conclude that Christie is the "chosen one", right? Not so fast....he is the single candidate with the most votes. However, consolidate the Paul/Cruz crowd (again, VERY similar folks) and you blow lardass out of the water. In fact, it's not even close.
Christe and Paul on the same ticket would should get a lot more votes than either alone. If would work great if P Christe set up VP Paul as in charge of reducing big government. Honestly, some kind of crazy mixed tixket like that drawing voters from both camps is the only way the GOP has a chance at all of beating Hillary with the machine she has behind her already. I really don't see a ticket of P Paul and VP Christie as a winner even if they would agree to it, which I doubt.
Christe and Paul on the same ticket would should get a lot more votes than either alone. If would work great if P Christe set up VP Paul as in charge of reducing big government. Honestly, some kind of crazy mixed tixket like that drawing voters from both camps is the only way the GOP has a chance at all of beating Hillary with the machine she has behind her already. I really don't see a ticket of P Paul and VP Christie as a winner even if they would agree to it, which I doubt.
Count on this: any ticket with Christie in the prime spot is a loser. The base won't buy it (again). I will proudly be among those who will see to that.
You keep going back to Christie as the nominee (not the VP slot) who can beat Hillary. You're going with that "electability" crap and not your conscience, aren't you? You can't honestly tell me,as a member of this site, that you actually believe in Christie (again, discarding that "electabilty" BS)???????
Eurodriver
02-04-14, 12:40
The Democrats have already won the "I like to vote pro-gay" voters.
The only chance the Republicans have of getting back in is to quit dropping "Rape baby is God's love" bullshit and start being pro-legalization of drugs.
Seriously - it's 2014. The only people that give a shit about illegal drugs are soccer moms and the police departments being given big bucks to find them.
It's hard to preach "personal responsibility", "freedom" and "liberty" when you're (literally) kicking in doors trying to find some plants and forcing 16 year olds attend traumatic abortion counseling sessions.
That's why the GOP keeps losing. Middle America sees right through that shit and gives the GOP a big "F. U." for it. I think most Republicans would be surprised at how quickly Americans would get on board with a political party that promised fiscal conservativism but kept its nosy do-good mentality out of the bedroom and 1984 Chevy Caprice gloveboxes.
You keep going back to Christie as the nominee (not the VP slot) who can beat Hillary.
Um, actually no. I quoted your post and built in your information to illustrate a point. Christe is not my nominee and I don't think the GOP is capable of beating Hillary.
What I said was (read it again) "Honestly, some kind of crazy mixed tixket like that drawing voters from both camps is the only way the GOP has a chance at all of beating Hillary with the machine she has behind her already. I really don't see a ticket of P Paul and VP Christie as a winner even if they would agree to it, which I doubt."
Um, actually no. I quoted your post and built in your information to illustrate a point. Christe is not my nominee and I don't think the GOP is capable of beating Hillary.
What I said was (read it again) "Honestly, some kind of crazy mixed tixket like that drawing voters from both camps is the only way the GOP has a chance at all of beating Hillary with the machine she has behind her already. I really don't see a ticket of P Paul and VP Christie as a winner even if they would agree to it, which I doubt."
Okay, fair enough. However, ANY ticket with Christie in the P slot is doomed no matter who the VP is.
And if the GOP can't defeat the Dems (and I'm not sure they can) then it's a demographic and welfare-state problem as I stated previously.
If the republican party had half a brain it would put Ted Cruz and Rand Paul on the same ticket instead of trying to put Christie on the ticket. Christie is a non-starter. If Romney couldn't pull it off Christie sure as hell ain't got a chance. Pick somebody decent and throw 100% of the party support behind them.
Okay, fair enough. However, ANY ticket with Christie in the P slot is doomed no matter who the VP is.
And if the GOP can't defeat the Dems (and I'm not sure they can) then it's a demographic and welfare-state problem as I stated previously.
Your last sentence is the answer...you're never going to beat Santa Claus, and with just over 50% of the voters having their hand out, a Republican candidate running, preaching cutting back on "entitlements" or "entitlement reform" is dead in the water, period. The mouth breathers/leeches have figured out that if they want the checks to keep rolling in, they need to vote Democrat/Socialist.. Add 8-11 million new "citizens" that I'm sure, (with rino help) the dems will have registered to vote by 2016, and the Republicans don't have a prayer. They,(the leeches, and "new" citizens) simply don't care about the future of this country, they're only concerned about what they can get for free, now. Margaret Thatcher summed it up nicely with her quote, "That the problem with Socialism is, that sooner or later they run out of other peoples money to spend".. While I see a barely Republican/Rino controlled congress possible, I don't see a Republican president until the Democrat/Socialists crash the economy, and the EBT cards don't work no more.. And their voting base mutiny's ..Or worse, they (Dem/Rinos & President) get us into a war, (Think Iran, Syria) in which we, as a country sustain a lot of damage.. Of course by then,(either way) the rest of us will probably have bigger problems to worry about.
I never thought I'd hear my self typing this, but I'm GLAD Christie is going down in flames, and I really don't care what the reason is. I always thought the SOB was too liberal-friendly. A RINO is a true conservative next to Christie. If his demise is due to a bridge scandal or too many donuts, I could care less.
Have a nice fall, Humpty Dumpty.
ONE down, HOW MANY to go? Agreed let them weed out the loosers before the primaries fight so we dont have a repeat of the last cycle. I'm backing Rand for now but would vote for Putin if it kept Hitlery out of office.
Agreed let them weed out the loosers before the primaries fight so we dont have a repeat of the last cycle. I'm backing Rand for now but would vote for Putin if it kept Hitlery out of office.
And that's EXACTLY what the Republican establishment hopes you'll do.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.