I've got to be honest here... I've pretty much given up any hope of Obama deciding to be bi-partisan and trying to fix this country rather than continuing on the path of making it horrendously worse. With that said, I've pretty much decided I'm just going to do what I can, and sit through this nightmare until it's over in 2016.

So... there's a few people who are already big names for 2016... you've got Hilary and Christie. Ignoring Hilary for a moment, what do you guys (asking from both sides here) think of Christie?

Here's how I see it... he's socially liberal, or either that just doesn't think it has a place in the government (probably the right idea), but he is obviously very fiscally conservative. I'm sure someone will bring up the special election, but aside from that... he has an absolute solid track record of fiscal conservatism. He has huge popularity with Democrats in the North East, as well as from Republicans. He's gone after wasteful spending, regardless of from whom or where it comes from.

I see him as someone who will re-shape the military spending into something that eliminates the hugely bloated "administrative" ranks in the DoD, as well as focus on collaborative future development rather than having 10 agencies all independently working on the exact same thing (even though they don't realize it).

From the welfare standpoint, I see him as someone who is going to re-instate all of the Clinton-era welfare policies... IE: time limits, requirement to search for work, regulation on food stamp programs, elimination of many of the free-bees, and a complete slashing of the Disability Compensation program (eliminating people from the welfare roles that don't truly have disabilities).


As referenced by my previous post about Keynesian / Classical economics... everyone SHOULD agree that we are in severe debt. Despite the claims that the economy is improving and that unemployment is going down, the numbers are being manipulated since we know that the percentage of people actually working in America is only 46%. This should really be more like 70% for us to have "full employment."

In any case, I'm kind of getting excited at the prospect of 2016 because I think he'll likely have full support of the independents... including the Democrats that call themselves independent. I think he'll probably also get a decent number of Democrats, and basically all of the Republicans.

I almost think he's a shoe-in.

Discuss...

Christie: The left will blast him because he has an R after his name, the right will blast him for his praises of Oblamo.

I will have to "feel him out" some more if he does run. Sometimes he says the right things for me and some times he doesn't. I'm a Libertarian. I can't stand Liberals, they are destroying our country. I do enjoy when he gets mad and hurts peoples feelings and doesn't care. But I am more interested in who the Libertarian party comes up with for a Candidate.

quote Originally posted by craigsfiero2007: I will have to "feel him out" some more if he does run. Sometimes he says the right things for me and some times he doesn't. I'm a Libertarian. I can't stand Liberals, they are destroying our country. I do enjoy when he gets mad and hurts peoples feelings and doesn't care. But I am more interested in who the Libertarian party comes up with for a Candidate.

Honestly, he's a libertarian as far as I'm concerned.

My idea of who / what a libertarian is, is someone who thinks the government should not be involved in people's personal lives, thinks government should only be as large as it needs to be to operate, and that federal fiscal conservatism is important.

That pretty much describes Christie...

I like him

I like Rand Paul, A LOT more. I also like Rand Paul's chances of beating out the Dems. All the crazy Ron Paul maniacs will vote for him too.

quote Originally posted by CoryFiero: I like Rand Paul, A LOT more. I also like Rand Paul's chances of beating out the Dems. All the crazy Ron Paul maniacs will vote for him too.

Rand Paul is my top choice today. We could certainly do worse than Christie. We're doing that now.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Rand Paul is my top choice today. We could certainly do worse than Christie. We're doing that now.

I feel the same way...

But I would still be happy if we ended up with Christie.

Yea, for sure. Christie > Romney > McCain

I like Rand Paul too. I supported Ron Paul, but I am not one of his crazy's. Paul or Christie would be a massive upgrade over Obama. It frustrates me that Obama got elected into office simply because of his skin color.

I got into a debate with a follow Soldier (who is black) about this. I told him alot of Obama's supporters just voted for him because he was black. He said that wasn't true. So I asked him if he voted for him and he said yes and I asked him why he voted for him and he said "Well, because he is a brotha and he is gonna hook us up." My reaction, I told him he just proved my point. He asked who I voted for, I told him, I voted for Gary Johnson and he said so you voted for a white man. I said no, I just voted for who I thought could get our country back on track. I continued to say, Gary Johnson could be black, white, hispanic, asian, or whatever and I would've voted for him. To have a person's skin color to be a contributing factor on whether you would vote for him or not is racism and ignorant.

I am hoping for Christie with either Paul or Rubio as his running mate.

The coronation of Queen Hillary has begun, with the opening of her Face Book page just two days before the announcement that Bill was chosen Father of the Year.
Then right after he began his subtle bad mouthing of Obama to begin their distancing from him.

Christie will be the only one that can handle the bad mouthing that the Clintons, as well as the lame stream media have waiting for their enemy.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: I am hoping for Christie with either Paul or Rubio as his running mate. The coronation of Queen Hillary has begun, with the opening of her Face Book page just two days before the announcement that Bill was chosen Father of the Year. Then right after he began his subtle bad mouthing of Obama to begin their distancing from him. Christie will be the only one that can handle the bad mouthing that the Clintons, as well as the lame stream media have waiting for their enemy.

Christie vs Hillary. I wanna see that. That would be like watching Celebrity Deathmatch. LOL! There isn't much doubt that Hillary will be the Democrats choice......again.

quote Originally posted by craigsfiero2007: I will have to "feel him out" some more.

No feeling of anyone here it is a family forum.

Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't



Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

quote Originally posted by craigsfiero2007: Christie vs Hillary. I wanna see that. That would be like watching Celebrity Deathmatch. LOL! There isn't much doubt that Hillary will be the Democrats choice......again.

I am certain that when she gets the nomination Chris Matthews will announce he just had an accident in his pants!

[This message has been edited by partfiero (edited 06-16-2013).]

Christie?
No way.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: But I would still be happy if we ended up with Christie.

quote Originally posted by olejoedad: Christie? No way.

I am more interested in seeing who else I might want to support. I like Rand Paul. Ted Cruz is very interesting. Rubio ? I would pay attention to his campaign with interest. Paul Ryan ? I like his economic command of the facts.
I do like Christi. He got zhit done and he had to do it accepting that some people were gonna be pissed. Those butt hurt people got over it and now support him. Speaking of getting zhit done, Sarah Palin did a good job in Alaska. She also was not afraid of people getting butt hurt.
There are somethings about Christi I am still too ignorant about and I have illogical conclusions.

I am not a fan of everything he has said and done.

To put it broadly, he wants to cut down the Federal Government... to a manageable level. But he doesn't want it out of the picture as much as I do.
But, he is a big spending-cutter, and he does think the government overreaches a lot.

Rand Paul is okay. I was/am a Ron Paul crazy. I don't agree with him on everything but I think he is a great politician. I'm a little less infatuated with Rand, but would DEFINITELY like to see him get the VP nod.

Voting for them depends on who the Libertarian Party puts up. I will consider who I agree with most firstly, and if the gap is minimal between R and L I may vote R.

I couldn't vote for Romney. He was not on my radar. I could vote for Christie with a clear conscious, depending on a few variables.

Hilary Clinton has a good chance of getting the D bid, and if this happens I have a few concerns:
1. She is worse than Obama, let's just get that out of the way. She's dangerous.
2. Ds love her. They practically worship the lady.
3. Is and Ls hate her, but Gs love her.
4. Rs need to intelligently express their dismissal of abortions, "free" birth control, etc. Meaning, they need to explain it as an unwillingness to expand government, not as an attack on women. If they can't do this then Hilary could win.

I really, really, really don't want Hilary in office.

EDIT: But all of this can and will change as it gets closer. I know minimal about Christie now compared to what I will when/if he is running.

[This message has been edited by theBDub (edited 06-17-2013).]

Nothing to do with Christie, but I'm nearly certain that there won't be anyone from either major party that i can support. In my opinion our system is a total wreck, with so much corruption on both sides that we will never be able to recover our past success.

I heard someone once describe Rand Paul as a guy who was born on second base but thinks he hit a double.

His filibuster over drone strikes was about as dumb as it gets. So he got a piece of paper from Obama that said he wouldn't use drone strikes against US citizens. Obama also swore he would uphold the constitution. His word is worthless, so that whole episode was a farce. The only thing he gets props for in that regard is that for a brief period of time he was a gigantic thorn in Obama's ass. That part scores him some points.

In comparison to Obama, or any of the recent conservative candidates, either Paul or Christie would be a HUGE improvement. Neither is perfect, but I would certainly approve of a campaign that started with either of their names. I would also really favor an Allen West campaign.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: His filibuster over drone strikes was about as dumb as it gets. So he got a piece of paper from Obama that said he wouldn't use drone strikes against US citizens. Obama also swore he would uphold the constitution. His word is worthless, so that whole episode was a farce. The only thing he gets props for in that regard is that for a brief period of time he was a gigantic thorn in Obama's ass. That part scores him some points.

Rand Paul's filibuster did exactly what it was intended to do - shine a light on the issue.
We need more politicians willing to actually filibuster instead of only threatening to.

I'm also a big Allen West fan, but I think he's too straight forward for most of America. Still, a Christie / West ticket would be a FUN campaign to watch. Both people who don't pull any punches and aren't afraid of a fight. The debates would be epic. Not saying I think they'd be the best team, but it would be a fun campaign.

why does our extreme right think only a extreme to the max rightwinger is a good idea ?

America is no where as extreme as you guys are
and any extreme rightwinger will lose BIG

YOU NEED TO MOVE A LONG WAY TO THE CENTER TO WIN
MOVING FAR RIGHT WILL NOT WORK

If ray's complaining, it must be good.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: If ray's complaining, it must be good.

NO it just shows how out of touch the rightwingers are
they value DOGMA over winning

With Rand Paul for Secretary of State and Paul Ryan for Secretary of the Treasury.

quote Originally posted by ray b: NO it just shows how out of touch the rightwingers are they value DOGMA over winning

Well your side values winning over ANYTHING and EVERYTHING!

Most times the debate is about being on the far right or being on the far left. You on the other hand are on the far wrong and every thing else is right by comparison.

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: Well your side values winning over ANYTHING and EVERYTHING! Most times the debate is about being on the far right or being on the far left. You on the other hand are on the far wrong and every thing else is right by comparison.

It's pointless. He's admitted to being a socialist, and there's so little (if any) logic to socialism that it's pointless to even try to discuss anything with him (that, and the fact that he doesn't seem to own a keyboard with any kind of punctuation marks, and seems to automatically type out the word "DOGMA" every other sentence). He believes that redistribution of wealth is somehow good, and sustainable. That fact alone proves how completely out of touch he is with anything even remotely resembling sense or reason. He thinks Obama is a MODERATE!

You can't rationalize with an irrational person, it just can't be done.

quote Originally posted by ray b: why does our extreme right think only a extreme to the max rightwinger is a good idea ? America is no where as extreme as you guys are and any extreme rightwinger will lose BIG YOU NEED TO MOVE A LONG WAY TO THE CENTER TO WIN MOVING FAR RIGHT WILL NOT WORK

Yes, and the Liberals are doing such a great job with the country. They are doing the best they can to destroy our Constitution and take away from people that work hard and give to people that don't do anything except sit at home and consume oxygen. I will vote for the far right before I vote anywhere near the left. But I will always support Libertarian's because they want to preserve the Constitution and stop hand outs. You want benefits, healthcare, and money? WORK FOR IT!

quote Originally posted by ray b: NO it just shows how out of touch the rightwingers are they value DOGMA over winning

Ray is, unfortunately, correct. Hard-right people require a candidate to say the right things up front. Lefties will accept a candidate that takes moderate positions to get elected, then verrs off in the "correct' direction.

WINNING isn't everything, it's the ONLY thing. A candidate you're not 100% in agreement with winning is much better than a guy you back completely who loses.

I think Christie will have a tough time. The teacher's union in New Jersey already has a price on his head. Most unions will not just go the other way, but actively fight him every inch of the way.

A honest question for Ray: Out of all the names thrown about, is Christie the most electable? I mean, I know you're not interested in voting for him, but in the event a Republican wins, is Christie the one most likely to do it?

ray believes the government should tax wealth.
You're not going to get a rational discussion from him.

We never had an obese president and I see no reason to start now.
if he cares so little about his own health why should he care about the countries.
steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't



Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

I usually vote on issues rather than party or candidate, and beginning with Bill Clinton's second term it's been Republican, but considering the history of the Democrats for the past 6 years I would vote for any Republican.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: We never had an obese president and I see no reason to start now. if he cares so little about his own health why should he care about the countries. steve

I take it you mean since the advent of television?

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 06-17-2013).]

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: We never had an obese president and I see no reason to start now. if he cares so little about his own health why should he care about the countries. steve

we had several fat guys as fearless leader

inc taft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Whtaft.jpeg

the adams were not thin nor was martin van B

[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 06-17-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: You can't rationalize with an irrational person, it just can't be done.

Was not trying, I was only making a statement. When somebody buys into the absurd with such fervor there is not much else to be done but laugh and ignore, and of course throw the occasional spit ball from the peanut gallery..

quote Originally posted by ray b: we had several fat guys as fearless leader inc taft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Whtaft.jpeg the adams were not thin nor was martin van B

fat yes but not obese like Crispy cream Christie
that guy gets his cloths made by Omar the tent maker
Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't



Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 06-17-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: ray believes the government should tax wealth. You're not going to get a rational discussion from him.

wealth is the most rational thing to tax
the extreme rightwing plans to tax the poor
are no where near rational
and the poor have very little money anyway
but the right loves VOODOO
BUT IT DON'T WORK !!!!!!!!!


BTW MOST LOCAL GOV TAXES HOME VALUE ie the value = wealth of most people
also land or commercial propertys
also tax stock or bond holdings too

[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 06-17-2013).]

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: We never had an obese president and I see no reason to start now. if he cares so little about his own health why should he care about the countries. steve

That totally ignores history but that undoubtedly will be one of the major campaign issues for the democrats,, look! he is fat! hahahah really? what else do they have....... democrats are not inclusive of race, gender or being the least bit different unless you agree with them and then only till you are no longer useful.

.

[This message has been edited by partfiero (edited 06-17-2013).]