PDA

View Full Version : Christie Looks More and More like a RINO everyday.



GrassrootsConservative
01-18-2013, 05:19 PM
From: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-chris-christie-lashes-out-nra-ad-20130118,0,1052799.story

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/chris-christie-PEPLT0000017577.topic), whose political hug of President Obama (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/barack-obama-PEPLT007408.topic) in the wake of Hurricane Sandy (http://www.latimes.com/topic/disasters-accidents/meteorological-disasters/hurricanes/hurricane-sandy-(2012)-EVWAN00045.topic) raised Republican hackles, has now criticized the National Rifle Assn. (http://www.latimes.com/topic/crime-law-justice/justice-rights/civil-rights/national-rifle-association-of-america-ORCIG000080.topic) for the group's anti-gun control ad that referenced the president's two daughters.
Considered a potential GOP (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/parties-movements/republican-party-ORGOV0000004.topic) national candidate in 2016, Christie on Thursday went after the NRA, which is part of the coalition that forms the GOP’s conservative wing. The ad argues that because Obama’s daughters have armed security, regular parents deserve the same treatment in the wake of last month’s deadly rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
The NRA has said it is in favor of putting armed guards in schools and opposes putting limits on owning guns and ammunition as Obama has proposed.
“To talk about the president’s children or any public officer’s children who have -- not by their own choice, but by requirement -- to have protection and to use that somehow to try to make a political point I think is reprehensible,” Christie said at a news conference in which he discussed gun control.
“My children had no choice that I wanted to run for governor. I pretended that they did. I asked them what they thought. But in the end, they had absolutely no choice in whether I ran for governor or not. And they knew that, by the way, when I was asking them, which is why they didn’t spend a whole lot of time answering.”
“But the effects on their lives are significant,” he told reporters. “And they’re a full couple of steps down from the effect that it would have if, you know, when your father’s president of the United States, and the security concerns that go along with that.”
Attacking the NRA may not disqualify Christie as a potential GOP candidate, but it is just the latest in a series of contrarian steps the pugnacious governor has taken.



This after he lashed out at TRUE CONSERVATIVES for their decision of refusal on a bill over Hurricane Sandy that was packed with bullshit pork and a bunch of other Democrat mess.

It's no wonder the leeches in Jersey like him.

If he is nominated in 2016 it will be the end of the Republican party.

A rather generous part of me hopes that happens.

RightWingExtremist
01-18-2013, 05:26 PM
At first, I thought he was just being bipartisan in a time of tragedy.. I didn't think he would get more moderate on me..

Mainecoons
01-18-2013, 06:34 PM
Whoops another REPUBLICRAT from the NE

Who'd a thunk it?

:grin:

Peter1469
01-18-2013, 07:13 PM
He was always RHINO. If he wasn't we would never have heard of him.

Adelaide
01-18-2013, 11:36 PM
I don't think this particular stance makes him a RINO. Opposing an ad that features the Obama children seems reasonable. Children should be off-limits. Doesn't matter if it's Obama, Palin, Clinton, or Bush; there is a line, and it shouldn't be crossed.

GrassrootsConservative
01-19-2013, 03:30 AM
I don't think this particular stance makes him a RINO. Opposing an ad that features the Obama children seems reasonable. Children should be off-limits. Doesn't matter if it's Obama, Palin, Clinton, or Bush; there is a line, and it shouldn't be crossed.
Adelaide
Just going to go ahead and ask, why is it O.K. for Obama to use children for political gains but not O.K. for republicans to do the same?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHpdLORzn3Y

Mainecoons
01-19-2013, 06:06 AM
Children are only off limits for Obama's opponents, silly.

When I think of teflon presidents, I realize that Barry is the greatest teflon POTUS of all times in America.

patrickt
01-19-2013, 06:09 AM
I hadn't seen the ad so I went and looked at it. The ad points out that the school Obama's kids attend has armed guards but that President Obama opposes armed guards in public schools. It then says he's an elitist hypocrite.

Why is this ad viewed as attacking his daughters and why is it described as diabolical? Barack Obama is an elitist. He is a hypocrite.

The turmoil over this ad is, in my opinion, nonsense stirred up by the liberal media and political opportunists.

I do not have a gun and I am not a member of the NRA.

Mainecoons
01-19-2013, 06:43 AM
I hadn't seen the ad so I went and looked at it. The ad points out that the school Obama's kids attend has armed guards but that President Obama opposes armed guards in public schools. It then says he's an elitist hypocrite.

Why is this ad viewed as attacking his daughters and why is it described as diabolical? Barack Obama is an elitist. He is a hypocrite.

The turmoil over this ad is, in my opinion, nonsense stirred up by the liberal media and political opportunists.

I do not have a gun and I am not a member of the NRA.

What Patrickt said. Word for word. Sums it up perfectly.

Saw that Brokaw was on MSNBC deriding the idea that citizens need to be armed against government tyranny. It is ironic that Brokaw is a poster child for how liberals have destroyed the free press in America which should be our first line of defense against government tyranny. If at some point it becomes necessary to go to war against Washington D.C. it will be precisely because the Brokaws perverted and destroyed the free press.

Pete7469
01-19-2013, 07:35 AM
Children are only off limits for Obama's opponents, silly.

When I think of teflon presidents, I realize that Barry is the greatest teflon POTUS of all times in America.

The moonbat messiah is a rusty iron skillet, the media is the teflon.

Adelaide
01-19-2013, 09:12 PM
@Adelaide (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=473)
Just going to go ahead and ask, why is it O.K. for Obama to use children for political gains but not O.K. for republicans to do the same?

I don't agree with Obama using his kids, so I'm not sure where you got that impression. Regardless, this is where Conservatives could take the high ground. This back and forth, "but, but - he did it first," crap is very middle school. Someone has to be the bigger person. Children should be off limit, period.

WesM
01-21-2013, 01:06 PM
This back and forth, "but, but - he did it first," crap is very middle school. Someone has to be the bigger person. .

Said the person who did it first.

Mister D
01-21-2013, 01:07 PM
Aren't the conservatives the real RINOs?

GrassrootsConservative
01-21-2013, 01:13 PM
Aren't the conservatives the real RINOs?

An interesting thought, Mister D. I suppose you could say that, but I refuse to believe that the Republican party is as bad as the Democrat party. There are many conservative Republicans, the first that comes to mind is from my state of Nebraska, Deb Fischer.

KC
01-21-2013, 01:42 PM
Aren't the conservatives the real RINOs?

That would seem more accurate.

It got me thinking though, the entire notion of a RINO is sort of silly. The Republican party has never represented a coherent set of values, and at best there have been moments in time when the Republican party was more coherent than others. Very few Republican presidents in this century have acted by putting the Constitution first, as one would expect from an American conservative, and the Republican party, like mainstream conservatism, has changed several times.

Mister D
01-21-2013, 01:46 PM
That would seem more accurate.

It got me thinking though, the entire notion of a RINO is sort of silly. The Republican party has never represented a coherent set of values, and at best there have been moments in time when the Republican party was more coherent than others. Very few Republican presidents in this century have acted by putting the Constitution first, as one would expect from an American conservative, and the Republican party, like mainstream conservatism, has changed several times.

That's true. The same is true for the Democrats. The tents are just too big.

KC
01-21-2013, 01:54 PM
That's true. The same is true for the Democrats. The tents are just too big.

Yeah, the Democrats are actually worse when it comes to consistency, but they've been around much longer. Ironic to think about how at one time Andrew Jackson's party once strongly opposed central banking, and now the fed prints his face on our devalued currency.

This is why I enjoy imagining the US with a better system for electing politicians. The current system puts too many in a position where they must choose between two politicians that do not really represent them, so you find the two big parties split up into many factions. I know it's not plausible in the US at least, but I think with a system like proportional representation, we'd at least have a better chance of electing politicians that represent us.

Mister D
01-21-2013, 01:55 PM
Yeah, the Democrats are actually worse when it comes to consistency, but they've been around much longer. Ironic to think about how at one time Andrew Jackson's party once strongly opposed central banking, and now the fed prints his face on our devalued currency.

This is why I enjoy imagining the US with a better system for electing politicians. The current system puts too many in a position where they must choose between two politicians that do not really represent them, so you find the two big parties split up into many factions. I know it's not plausible in the US at least, but I think with a system like proportional representation, we'd at least have a better chance of electing politicians that represent us.

I rather like the idea of proportional representation myself.

KC
01-21-2013, 02:00 PM
I rather like the idea of proportional representation myself.

The most interesting thing is that many European countries that adopted PR did so because major parties of the left were worried about being out competed by a more radical, third party of the left. I wonder sometimes if politicians in the US would respond with electoral reform if they felt threatened by a third party.

Mister D
01-21-2013, 02:04 PM
The most interesting thing is that many European countries that adopted PR did so because major parties of the left were worried about being out competed by a more radical, third party of the left. I wonder sometimes if politicians in the US would respond with electoral reform if they felt threatened by a third party.

Since the personality type predominant in our political system is concerned above all with retaining power and perks I think it would generate a positive response.

Chloe
01-22-2013, 08:43 PM
I don't understand why republicans and conservatives are being so hard on Christie just because he didn't do everything the way the party leaders wanted him to with Obama and the hurricane, especially when just like a couple of months ago they all loved him and was the future president. It's not a bad thing to try and be as fair minded as possible and not always go along with the party platform.

GrassrootsConservative
01-22-2013, 08:47 PM
I don't understand why republicans and conservatives are being so hard on Christie just because he didn't do everything the way the party leaders wanted him to with Obama and the hurricane, especially when just like a couple of months ago they all loved him and was the future president. It's not a bad thing to try and be as fair minded as possible and not always go along with the party platform.

Not being hard on him. He's ACTING like a Democrat. Sucking off Obama's nips to get some government subsidies.

That's wrong of him to do, and yes, we are going to chastise him for it.

He's just as "on the dole" as 53% of the nation right now.

Chloe
01-22-2013, 08:51 PM
Not being hard on him. He's ACTING like a Democrat. Sucking off Obama's nips to get some government subsidies.

That's wrong of him to do, and yes, we are going to chastise him for it.

He's just as "on the dole" as 53% of the nation right now.

He is the governor of new jersey, not texas or some big republican state. His state was hit by a horrible hurricane and he did what he thought was best for his state and the people living there.

roadmaster
01-22-2013, 08:52 PM
Christie, I am a con and never liked him. Just because he has an R doesn't mean we always like them. I vote on the person and what they stand for not the R or D behind their name.

Pete7469
01-22-2013, 08:53 PM
I don't understand why republicans and conservatives are being so hard on Christie just because he didn't do everything the way the party leaders wanted him to with Obama and the hurricane, especially when just like a couple of months ago they all loved him and was the future president. It's not a bad thing to try and be as fair minded as possible and not always go along with the party platform.

I never liked Christie, but at least he isn't the thief that Corzine is. The problem is he kissed the moonbat messiah's ring, and got nothing in return. Then after the republican house stopped a pork barrel bill that wasn't focused on Sandy Relief, he condemned the republicans, not the democrooks in the senate who added billions in spending we don't have the funds for.

Being "fair minded" only counts when conservatives give liberals the power over other people's money.

roadmaster
01-22-2013, 08:54 PM
He is the governor of new jersey, not texas or some big republican state. His state was hit by a horrible hurricane and he did what he thought was best for his state and the people living there.

Did he? He was all talk. Anyone can say they are going to do this and that. Ask the people who live there what he did.

GrassrootsConservative
01-22-2013, 08:58 PM
I never liked Christie, but at least he isn't the thief that Corzine is. The problem is he kissed the moonbat messiah's ring, and got nothing in return. Then after the republican house stopped a pork barrel bill that wasn't focused on Sandy Relief, he condemned the republicans, not the democrooks in the senate who added billions in spending we don't have the funds for.

Being "fair minded" only counts when conservatives give liberals the power over other people's money.

I wasn't trying to bring up the pork issue. I'm sure Christie is very sensitive about his weight.
:laughing6:

roadmaster
01-22-2013, 09:16 PM
No he is very sensitive about his state and the people that he didn't want to cancel the race. The people who lost their homes or electricity that were in motels would have to leave and find shelter elsewhere. It was all about the revenue the race would send to his state, but he was there to help.

Peter1469
01-22-2013, 09:31 PM
I don't understand why republicans and conservatives are being so hard on Christie just because he didn't do everything the way the party leaders wanted him to with Obama and the hurricane, especially when just like a couple of months ago they all loved him and was the future president. It's not a bad thing to try and be as fair minded as possible and not always go along with the party platform.

There is a good chance the Obama would have lost the election had Sandy and Christie not occurred. The guy should just admit that his is a conservative dem.

Peter1469
01-22-2013, 09:33 PM
He is the governor of new jersey, not texas or some big republican state. His state was hit by a horrible hurricane and he did what he thought was best for his state and the people living there.

If Christie made the same statements to Obama personally, outside of the cameras, would Christie have gotten anything for NJ?

Chloe
01-22-2013, 09:34 PM
If Christie made the same statements to Obama personally, outside of the cameras, would Christie have gotten anything for NJ?

Are you actually asking me?

Chloe
01-22-2013, 09:36 PM
If Christie made the same statements to Obama personally, outside of the cameras, would Christie have gotten anything for NJ?

I'd like to say yes, but since you are asking me like that I have a feeling the answer should be no.

Peter1469
01-22-2013, 09:53 PM
I'd like to say yes, but since you are asking me like that I have a feeling the answer should be no.

The answer is no. The deal was that he had to say that on camera. That is how politics works, young dragonfly.

Sunbelt
02-09-2013, 09:56 AM
This after he lashed out at TRUE CONSERVATIVES for their decision of refusal on a bill over Hurricane Sandy that was packed with bullshit pork and a bunch of other Democrat mess.

It's no wonder the leeches in Jersey like him.

If he is nominated in 2016 it will be the end of the Republican party.

A rather generous part of me hopes that happens.Pfft. He's just avoiding the rush. I think there are a lot more RINO's out there than we think.

Pete7469
02-09-2013, 07:12 PM
Pfft. He's just avoiding the rush. I think there are a lot more RINO's out there than we think.

One of the problems we have as republicans is our willingness to disembowel each other for political power.

Look at the left for instance...

They claim to be ardent supporters of gay rights, humane animal treatment, woman's equality and secularism. Yet they do their damnest to protect the radical islamic extremeist who are killing those sorts of people in the 3rd world, and denounce any Christian endeavors that question the benefits of their dogma as the "right wing taliban". Yet none of their members questions the hypocrisy, conflict of interest or ethics of any of their members as long as they pay their dues.

On the repukeican/conservative/right we eviserate each other for not adhereing to lock step religous dogma that alienates people interested in free will and independence based on morality, even though it's obvious even to moonbats that men shouldn't be able to legally fuck kids, though they don't denounce NAMBLA.

We argue amongst each other constantly, and call each other RINO's (I'm guilty too), while the statist left consolidates it's power and ridicules our inability to stand for what is right.

If we simply focused on the economic policies of Ludwig von Mises (http://mises.org/) we could defeat the left at their own game by defunding their ability to promote their empire crushing initiatives. We can argue against abortion, butt piracy, islamic jihadists setting up guerilla camps within our borders, funding useless art schools, deporting criminal illegal aliens, drug legalization and the federal reserve later. We are the most disorganized people who are right about almost everything than any group that might have ever existed, and we are up against the most organized clusterfuck of dipshits who are wrong about almost everything in history.

Like I've said before, the left stands in unity and suppresses dissent within it's own ranks because they're robotic and have no critical or independent thinking skills. Anyone who demonstrates any is purged.

We have so many different groups of people who are constantly destroying each other we're litteraly allowing the 20% of bed wetting leftists to maintain control over far too much of the debate. If the 80% who aren't mindless idiots at least agree to a balanced budget and fair tax sytem the moonbats will all move to europe.

We can unfuck all the other bullshit later.

zelmo1234
02-10-2013, 06:25 AM
Yeah, the Democrats are actually worse when it comes to consistency, but they've been around much longer. Ironic to think about how at one time Andrew Jackson's party once strongly opposed central banking, and now the fed prints his face on our devalued currency.

This is why I enjoy imagining the US with a better system for electing politicians. The current system puts too many in a position where they must choose between two politicians that do not really represent them, so you find the two big parties split up into many factions. I know it's not plausible in the US at least, but I think with a system like proportional representation, we'd at least have a better chance of electing politicians that represent us.

The reason that any Third party can not catch on in the USA is MONEY. we have election cycles that take the better part of a year and a billion dollars. No third party can sustain this pace.

Eva Longoria actually had an interesting Idea (of all people) That elections should be 3 months long, and Primaries 2 months but in the spring before the election. So primaries would be April and May, and then the election would be August September and October with the election the first tuesday in Nov.

If this was the case, a third party could raise enough money to get the message out. And they would be very issue oriented, as there would be little time.

I would add that Lyable and Slander could be brought into the election cycles and those that promote it would be held to the fullest extent of the law, incluting the media. This would prevent things like the birther story, and the not paying taxes stories from taking front stage and driving the election back toward the issues.

zelmo1234
02-10-2013, 06:32 AM
I don't understand why republicans and conservatives are being so hard on Christie just because he didn't do everything the way the party leaders wanted him to with Obama and the hurricane, especially when just like a couple of months ago they all loved him and was the future president. It's not a bad thing to try and be as fair minded as possible and not always go along with the party platform.

How hard do you think the Dems would be on Obama if he came out and decided that he would Pro Life and Pro Gun.

Christie has decided that he is going to be a left leaning moderate, and we have had enoug of that. The economy is hurting and people are hurting, Conservative Republicans beleive that Government and regulations are the reasons that businesses are sitting on 2 trillion in capital, and we want it invested so the economy starts to grow and produce good jobs and lower cost for the middle class. Christie just went against some of what Conservative Republicans were looking for.

Which moved Rubio to Front Runner Status. The Dems will start attacking Rubio soon, as a minority running on the Republican side spells death to there power hold and they know it! When Rubio came out and told America that he would vote against the immigration reform that he helped to write if the boarders were not secure first! He made points with conservatives.

Mainecoons
02-10-2013, 07:58 AM
Even better Zelmo, let's ditch the primaries altogether. No one votes in them but the extremes of each party. Consistently, they are nominating bad candidates. Political parties are private organizations, they should not have to subject their nominating process to bad public referendums.

The delegate system in the parties is very democratic and favors the people who actually do the work of campaigns at the grass roots levels.

Go back to parties nominating their own candidates and restrict the general election campaign until after labor day. That would cut the cost of running for POTUS immensely and open the door for serious third party efforts.

I'm speaking from experience with both approaches, party nomination vs. primaries. The former worked far better than the latter does now. Primaries are too much democracy and not really very democratic as they simply don't have the level of participation required to get mainstream candidates.

Peter1469
02-10-2013, 08:53 AM
If only the extremes vote in primaries, why have the GOP nominated liberals lately?

KC
02-10-2013, 11:57 AM
The reason that any Third party can not catch on in the USA is MONEY. we have election cycles that take the better part of a year and a billion dollars. No third party can sustain this pace.

Eva Longoria actually had an interesting Idea (of all people) That elections should be 3 months long, and Primaries 2 months but in the spring before the election. So primaries would be April and May, and then the election would be August September and October with the election the first tuesday in Nov.

If this was the case, a third party could raise enough money to get the message out. And they would be very issue oriented, as there would be little time.

I would add that Lyable and Slander could be brought into the election cycles and those that promote it would be held to the fullest extent of the law, incluting the media. This would prevent things like the birther story, and the not paying taxes stories from taking front stage and driving the election back toward the issues.

Yes, that would certainly drive down the costs of campaigning. Many countries do this already, but I think Americans truly enjoy having the politicians coming to their states, and let's face, the U.S. is geographically huge compared to many other liberal democracies.

Another huge problem is the Commission on Presidential debates, whose job it is to make sure that only Republicans and Democrats are allowed in the debates.

Mainecoons
02-10-2013, 12:58 PM
If only the extremes vote in primaries, why have the GOP nominated liberals lately?

That's a fair question. In the case of Bush and Romney, perhaps the electorate saw no feasible choices. Or perhaps there were so many of the more fringe candidates, that voted was too divided.

More importantly, getting rid of the cost of the primaries would drastically reduce the cost of running. It is a lot easier and cheaper and you are campaigning to a much more politically savvy bunch when you only have to win over the majority of convention delegates.

Pete7469
02-10-2013, 03:35 PM
If only the extremes vote in primaries, why have the GOP nominated liberals lately?


I think it has a lot to do with the media. Each candidate that spent any time at the top in popular polling was savaged, and they fell one by one. Romney never was at the top, and he helped destroy fellow republicans as well or better than the media. We need to stop allowing this to happen, or we'll never get better than a RINO.

Mainecoons
02-10-2013, 07:24 PM
Bottom line is that these primaries are costing way too much and nominating truly bad candidates in both parties.

Cigar
02-11-2013, 07:42 AM
This after he lashed out at TRUE CONSERVATIVES for their decision of refusal on a bill over Hurricane Sandy that was packed with bullshit pork and a bunch of other Democrat mess.

It's no wonder the leeches in Jersey like him.

If he is nominated in 2016 it will be the end of the Republican party.

A rather generous part of me hopes that happens.



I just like to see him try the tough-guy shit on a Man and not Women.

Bigred1cav
02-18-2013, 08:45 PM
Christy is a Republican not a fascist, tea bagger, hate filled gun lover. He understands 90% of the USA isn't crazy.