|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 13 2016 13:12 LegalLord wrote:
I can't help but feel bad for Chris Christie. He really went to bat for Trump back when his victory was far from certain. But because he was caught in some stupid corruption he lost the chance to be VP, and lost his position as transition leader. Now he'll be lucky to get a job as presidential shoe shiner.
I do not get the way conservatives look at Christie and dismiss "some stupid corruption", while with Clinton it's the "most corrupt career politician evar". Seems to be same same to me. If Trumpists were earnest with their anti-establishment rhetoric, Christie would be the first to never hold any relevance again. Dare I say hypocrisy?
|
Canada11603 Posts
I suppose a difference could be whether Christie presided over corruption, but did not partake (a sort of Ulysses Grant), or was the corruption underneath him, also his corruption.
|
On November 13 2016 13:27 ACrow wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 13:12 LegalLord wrote:
I can't help but feel bad for Chris Christie. He really went to bat for Trump back when his victory was far from certain. But because he was caught in some stupid corruption he lost the chance to be VP, and lost his position as transition leader. Now he'll be lucky to get a job as presidential shoe shiner. I do not get the way conservatives look at Christie and dismiss "some stupid corruption", while with Clinton it's the "most corrupt career politician evar". Seems to be same same to me. If Trumpists were earnest with their anti-establishment rhetoric, Christie would be the first to never hold any relevance again. Dare I say hypocrisy?
Minor quibble: conservatives generally don't like Christie. He's a pretty liberal Republican.
And can you say partisanship? Though we'll see what happens as the case develops.
|
I think it has to do with the corruption itself Christie's bridge gate was petty and only hurt commuters. Clintons showed either competence. Es i
|
On November 13 2016 13:27 ACrow wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 13:12 LegalLord wrote:
I can't help but feel bad for Chris Christie. He really went to bat for Trump back when his victory was far from certain. But because he was caught in some stupid corruption he lost the chance to be VP, and lost his position as transition leader. Now he'll be lucky to get a job as presidential shoe shiner. I do not get the way conservatives look at Christie and dismiss "some stupid corruption", while with Clinton it's the "most corrupt career politician evar". Seems to be same same to me. If Trumpists were earnest with their anti-establishment rhetoric, Christie would be the first to never hold any relevance again. Dare I say hypocrisy?
Not a conservative, not entirely anyways. And by "some stupid corruption" I mean "he did something really stupid" not "what a random and useless thing to focus on."
I just feel a bit of sympathy for the corrupt asshole looking for a way out, lol.
|
Well, when DWS et al manipulated the DNC to gut the Sanders campaign, it was also blamed on Clinton, even though she just presided over it without being directly involved. Besides, Christie is not dumb, I'm pretty certain he was fully aware of it (just as I'm certain Clinton was aware of the DNC machinations) or if he was not, it is a very large and equally disqualifying shortcoming for a leader to not notice something like this happening under his watch.
|
On November 13 2016 13:40 ACrow wrote:
Well, when DWS et al manipulated the DNC to gut the Sanders campaign, it was also blamed on Clinton, even though she just presided over it without being directly involved. Besides, Christie is not dumb, I'm pretty certain he was fully aware of it (just as I'm certain Clinton was aware of the DNC machinations) or if he was not, it is a very large and equally disqualifying shortcoming for a leader to not notice something like this happening under his watch.
Well she did immediately giver her a job and campaign for her, hard to say she was upset about the cheating and such.
|
On November 13 2016 13:34 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 13:27 ACrow wrote:On November 13 2016 13:12 LegalLord wrote:
I can't help but feel bad for Chris Christie. He really went to bat for Trump back when his victory was far from certain. But because he was caught in some stupid corruption he lost the chance to be VP, and lost his position as transition leader. Now he'll be lucky to get a job as presidential shoe shiner. I do not get the way conservatives look at Christie and dismiss "some stupid corruption", while with Clinton it's the "most corrupt career politician evar". Seems to be same same to me. If Trumpists were earnest with their anti-establishment rhetoric, Christie would be the first to never hold any relevance again. Dare I say hypocrisy? Minor quibble: conservatives generally don't like Christie. He's a pretty liberal Republican. And can you say partisanship? Though we'll see what happens as the case develops.
He must mean Republicans. Christie was an establishment and media favorite for a time in the primaries. Conservatives generally revile him. I haven't looked deep into the corruption case, but it appears he deserves shame for his involvement.
|
On November 13 2016 13:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 10:49 LegalLord wrote:
Regardless of how you feel about Comey reopening the case, do we all more or less have a consensus that Congressional Democrats handled this really poorly and Harry Reid's letter was in really poor taste that did little more than to create bad blood? Yes, they blew the whole thing. Going all the way back to claiming the emails were nothing (even if there was nothing to come of it, it wasn't nothing, Hillary supporters are screaming from the rafters that the emails are what sunk her, it's tangential whatever Comey did. If Democrats said, "No your extremely careless handling of secure materials, your mistake in setting it up in the first place, and your repeated lies about it mean we're not going to back you", instead of "nothing to see here folks, move along" we likely wouldn't be in this mess. Reid's letter was one of his last gasps for a completely irrelevant politician.
To some extent I think the coverup was worse than the crime. If Hillary showed genuine remorse and admitted responsibility well ahead of the FBI recommendation, it would have been mostly forgotten in the primaries and briefly mentioned later on. Romney's "47 percent" was bad but made worse by the fact that he initially tried to defend it. Trump's pussygate was by far the worst of the three, but he instantly apologized and never defended it, and a lot of conservative voters I knew respected that and were willing to forgive him for it.
Hillary, she isn't capable of admitting a mistake, not until it's so obvious that it is well beyond believable. When she is investigated by the FBI for pretty severe breach of protocol (I can only imagine what would happen to me if I were caught doing that at work), she says "oh, it's just a query (or whatever term she used), not an investigation." Evil KGB spies leak proof that the DNC was in the tank for her, she puts the ringleader on her campaign. See a pattern here?
|
On November 13 2016 13:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 13:34 Introvert wrote:On November 13 2016 13:27 ACrow wrote:On November 13 2016 13:12 LegalLord wrote:
I can't help but feel bad for Chris Christie. He really went to bat for Trump back when his victory was far from certain. But because he was caught in some stupid corruption he lost the chance to be VP, and lost his position as transition leader. Now he'll be lucky to get a job as presidential shoe shiner. I do not get the way conservatives look at Christie and dismiss "some stupid corruption", while with Clinton it's the "most corrupt career politician evar". Seems to be same same to me. If Trumpists were earnest with their anti-establishment rhetoric, Christie would be the first to never hold any relevance again. Dare I say hypocrisy? Minor quibble: conservatives generally don't like Christie. He's a pretty liberal Republican. And can you say partisanship? Though we'll see what happens as the case develops. He must mean Republicans. Christie was an establishment and media favorite for a time in the primaries. Conservatives generally revile him. I haven't looked deep into the corruption case, but it appears he deserves shame for his involvement.
I think people are harking back to 2012 when he was a favorite, more liked than Romney by pretty much all the Republicans/Conservatives here because of his Trump lite rhetoric (shouting down the teacher, and telling people to shut up and such). There was also getting elected in a "blue" state, so they gave him a pass on his less conservative credentials.
I imagine in a year or two you'll be able to find many of the people both supporting Trump and opposing Trump basically switching sides. Our politics are so ridiculous.
I said a long time ago though that Trump was the furthest left candidate Republicans have put up in recent history, and Hillary the furthest right from Democrats. I suspect Trump's biggest opposition is not going to be Democrats but the Republicans screaming that this isn't what they signed up for... Like they didn't take the word of one of the most notorious conmen (also a long time Democrat prior to Obama) not in prison or dead.
It's astonishing to me how blindsided people are getting by all this, it's hard for me to believe, but it's also hard to believe they'd rather be seen as that oblivious rather than just deceitful.
|
Clinton did eventually pursue an "I fucked up" approach to the server, especially in the debates. What sunk her is not doing it sooner because of her aides' questionable advice, which poisoned her in the primary despite Sanders' best efforts, and once her actions generated traction for a substantial anti-Clinton contingent in the primaries she faced the problem of both the far right and the far left loving passing around any news that painted her negatively. Which is not a happy place to be.
|
About a year into the campaign she did finally admit wrongdoing, yes. It strikes me as having about the same level of willingness to admit wrongdoing as the Vatican finally admitting that Galileo might have been right, as they did not too long ago (1992 to be precise).
|
On November 13 2016 13:59 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Clinton did eventually pursue an "I fucked up" approach to the server, especially in the debates. What sunk her is not doing it sooner because of her aides' questionable advice, which poisoned her in the primary, and once her actions generated a substantial anti-Clinton contingent in the primaries she faced the problem of both the far right and the far left loving passing around any news that painted her negatively. Which is not a happy place to be.
The advice that got her in this mess was Colin Powell's, coincidentally, not the first time. Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.
|
Can't blame people for giving you advice if you don't have the judgment to tell good advice from bad advice. Though that's not nearly as bad as getting caught stealing from the cookie jar and pretending you didn't do it.
|
What the fuck was with that SNL opening?
|
To bring up something we all forgot about, the Trump University suit is scheduled to start soon and it puts everyone in an awkward situation. People are saying a conviction for fraud could be grounds to make a case for impeachment. Curiel basically told them that they should settle the case, and Trump's lawyer agrees. If I were him I'd settle.
|
On November 13 2016 14:40 xDaunt wrote:
What the fuck was with that SNL opening?
Was it catharsis for the writers disappointed in America's choice? Was the unintentional humor (overwrought solemnity) some kind of nod from SNL to its liberal audience ... like group therapy? Or is this the kind of Seth Myers/Stephen Colbert/Trevor Noah tone-deaf comedy with a dearth of comedy?
Twitter says this kind of opening is unseen since 9/11. This show had a great time with Obama/Hillary '07-'08. So weird. Best line was:
I did my best. It wasn't much.
Maybe today's program was only made to create a better contrast with the next line making fun of President Trump!
|
On November 13 2016 15:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 14:40 xDaunt wrote:
What the fuck was with that SNL opening? Was it catharsis for the writers disappointed in America's choice? Was the unintentional humor (overwrought solemnity) some kind of nod from SNL to its liberal audience ... like group therapy? Or is this the kind of Seth Myers/Stephen Colbert/Trevor Noah tone-deaf comedy with a dearth of comedy? Twitter says this kind of opening is unseen since 9/11. This show had a great time with Obama/Hillary '07-'08. So weird. Best line was: Maybe today's program was only made to create a better contrast with the next line making fun of President Trump!
It's more of the same liberal tone-deafness and unfounded arrogance that we all have come to love and expect. And spoiler alert: the show didn't improve after the opening. I just watched the news segment, and these clowns are trying to score morality points by talking about how divided the country is and how we must come together and talk, all while making this feel-good, inane point in the middle of a relentless barrage of jokes shitting on half of the country. Hmmm, I wonder where this national division comes from? Yeah, fuck those people. May God smite them with a plague of Pepes.
The only redeeming value of this SNL episode is Chappelle.
|
On November 13 2016 14:40 xDaunt wrote:
What the fuck was with that SNL opening?
People still watch SNL?
|
On November 13 2016 15:54 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 14:40 xDaunt wrote:
What the fuck was with that SNL opening? People still watch SNL?
I wanted to see Chappelle. But yes, SNL blows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
