|
|
On November 01 2012 06:47 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 04:37 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 04:36 StarStrider wrote:
Standing in a line for an early vote today. Gary Johnson has absolutely zero chance of getting elected... but I feel that if my vote is wasted on a mainstream candidate, then I might as well use it to send a message, and truly vote for the principles i believe in, instead of the lesser of two evils. 5% does the LIbertarian Party WONDERS. I don't understand why they don't spread that message more. 5% gets them a lot of benefits for the next cycle. i have seen some information from both the Libertarian Party and the Green Party about the 5% vote being a big goal. I think it's much more likely for Gary Johnson than Jill Stein(there are a surprising amount of libertarians in this country 0.o, I know liberals who liked Ron Paul after all, no clue) I really think it's just their financial situation that prevents them from spreading the message more, also "begging" for a mere 5% of the vote might turn people away, maybe some of the people voting for them actually truly believe in miracles, and they might not vote otherwise as a waste of time, I mean 4 years is a long time. I really don't know about voter psychology, I'm just making stuff up, but I think a vote for a third party candidate is worth it. .
It's very worth it if you're not in a swing state. Your vote means very little towards deciding who get the EVs, but it's very important to campaign finance for the little guy. I voted third party four years ago simply because I knew my vote wouldn't affect the outcome of the EVs and wanted to give my support the the third party i supported the most.
|
BluePanther, do you mind linking to the leaks that you said made you decide not to vote Obama? I might have missed your reply but I don't think I've seen you post them yet.
|
|
|
The information there seems to come from interviews with "American, European and Israeli officials involved in the program, as well as a range of outside experts". What's unusual about this? Bob Woodward wrote a similar book about the Afghan surge under Obama.
edit: the second article is apparently about the leaks that happened later, and it makes clear Obama and his administration are very serious about holding the person responsible for the leaks accountable. I don't really see what here is supposed to indicate the leaks are not taken seriously.
|
On November 01 2012 08:42 kwizach wrote:The information there seems to come from interviews with "American, European and Israeli officials involved in the program, as well as a range of outside experts". What's unusual about this? Bob Woodward wrote a similar book about the Afghan surge under Obama. edit: the second article is apparently about the leaks that happened later, and it makes clear Obama and his administration are very serious about holding the person responsible for the leaks accountable. I don't really see what here is supposed to indicate the leaks are not taken seriously.
if you're looking for a justification, you're not getting one. there are hundreds of articles that a simple google search will unearth on this topic. seriously, just stop now. even if you convince me i was wrong (which you really can't, as it's just a factor in my opinion), i've said multiple times that it's not even what convinced me to vote for Romney. there is no point to debating it with me.
|
On November 01 2012 08:51 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 08:42 kwizach wrote:The information there seems to come from interviews with "American, European and Israeli officials involved in the program, as well as a range of outside experts". What's unusual about this? Bob Woodward wrote a similar book about the Afghan surge under Obama. edit: the second article is apparently about the leaks that happened later, and it makes clear Obama and his administration are very serious about holding the person responsible for the leaks accountable. I don't really see what here is supposed to indicate the leaks are not taken seriously. if you're looking for a justification, you're not getting one. there are hundreds of articles that a simple google search will unearth on this topic. seriously, just stop now. even if you convince me i was wrong (which you really can't, as it's just a factor in my opinion), i've said multiple times that it's not even what convinced me to vote for Romney. there is no point to debating it with me.
I'm not denying the leaks happened - I read about them myself when they did. I thought you had evidence of them happening for political gains, which I thought was the reason you were very disappointed with the Obama administration on the matter. Apparently, it wasn't the case, and the administration took the leaks seriously. I therefore have my answer.
|
On November 01 2012 08:51 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 08:42 kwizach wrote:The information there seems to come from interviews with "American, European and Israeli officials involved in the program, as well as a range of outside experts". What's unusual about this? Bob Woodward wrote a similar book about the Afghan surge under Obama. edit: the second article is apparently about the leaks that happened later, and it makes clear Obama and his administration are very serious about holding the person responsible for the leaks accountable. I don't really see what here is supposed to indicate the leaks are not taken seriously. if you're looking for a justification, you're not getting one. seriously, just stop now.
Iunno, to be fair you've been pretty conservative, pro-republican, and partisan the entire time I've read your posts. It seems disingenuous to even really act like you genuinely were choosing between the two candidates. If I could bet a million dollars that you wouldn't vote Obama, I would've done that months and months ago, pretty much since I've started reading this thread basically.
|
On November 01 2012 06:43 On_Slaught wrote:
Funny watching Christie talk up Obama.
I'd wager a large amount of money that he is voting for Obama if we had a way of knowing the answer.
Christie will be more than happy to see Obama win. A) Christie might want to run in 2016, which is a direct motive for wanting to see Obama win. B) Christie isn't as partisan as a lot of Republicans. New Jersey is certainly not a very Republican state. He is a conservative in his policies, but I don't think he is a "good conservative" when it comes to playing politics, which is much to his credit.
edit: Let's not forget, in our collective Romnesia, what was just recently said in the first presidential debate
KING: What else, Governor Romney? You’ve been a chief executive of a state. I was just in Joplin, Missouri. I’ve been in Mississippi and Louisiana and Tennessee and other communities dealing with whether it’s the tornadoes, the flooding, and worse. FEMA is about to run out of money, and there are some people who say do it on a case-by-case basis and some people who say, you know, maybe we’re learning a lesson here that the states should take on more of this role. How do you deal with something like that? ROMNEY: Absolutely. Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better. Instead of thinking in the federal budget, what we should cut—we should ask ourselves the opposite question. What should we keep? Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2012/10/romney-has-a-christie-problem-and-a-fema-problem.html#ixzz2AvOmQKUJ
Why would Christie support Romney, given Romney's recently stated position (because we all know that anything more than two months old doesn't count when it's coming from Mitt Romney) on FEMA? Let States handle environmental catastrophes? Oh yes, that's very fair to the coastal states, isn't it?
Given Hurricane Sandy and Romney's milquetoast leadership, it would make sense that Chris Christie is more comfortable, as a Governor, seeing Obama retain his Presidency.
|
On November 01 2012 08:42 kwizach wrote:The information there seems to come from interviews with "American, European and Israeli officials involved in the program, as well as a range of outside experts". What's unusual about this? Bob Woodward wrote a similar book about the Afghan surge under Obama. edit: the second article is apparently about the leaks that happened later, and it makes clear Obama and his administration are very serious about holding the person responsible for the leaks accountable. I don't really see what here is supposed to indicate the leaks are not taken seriously.
I don't know about Blue Panther, but for me it's all about the law of averages or whatever it's called. how likely is it that a guy whose response to everything is to say: "I'm deeply concerned about this" is actually deeply concerned about the things that continue to happen under his watch, despite repeated calls for him to stop them; including from his own defense secretary, who walked into the White House to tell them, and I quote: "Shut the fuck up!"
shit, that was a question, so there should be a question mark... I suck at grammar. anyway, it's like: can I take these things as if they occur in a vacuum? he's got a leaky ship administration that keeps stonewalling Congressional committees who are investigating serious breakdowns, some of which have led to the death of American service members, and whenever someone brings any of it up around him, he either deflects, or condemns the investigators as "politicizing the issue." leaks that may have put service members in harms way are pretty serious in their own right, and they become even more serious when you stonewall the investigators and pretend there wasn't any leaks at all. combine that with multiple leaks, all released at "politically strategic times"?
you hear serious about bringing the person responsible to account, I hear "hold on a sec, I've gotta find me a fall guy real quick"
|
On November 01 2012 09:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:
you hear serious about bringing the person responsible to account, I hear "hold on a sec, I've gotta find me a fall guy real quick"
Seems like a simple case of guilt before innocence, doesn't it? The rule is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty here, though.
|
Chris Christie has probably been awake for three days, is flying around, hugging grieving wives and grandmothers, some of whom have lost everything. he's looking at his state, the state he is in charge of and the people he has been elected to lead, and it's torn to shreds in some places. the worst part is that he can't do anything for a lot of them, not really. the dude is probably on edge, doesn't give two shits about anything but New Jersey, and needs a lot of money. he is buttering the guy up who has the money, and is more than happy with anyone who wants to help him out.
i'll say this about the guy, he's honest and he speaks his mind and doesn't give a shit about what people think about it. everyone wants to make a big deal about his comments as if they reveal some inner thought or something, but that's obviously not who Chris Christie is. he snapped at the Fox News people because he's on edge and high-strung and they asked a stupid-ass question. he's praising Obama because Obama is helping him, and is going to help him, rebuild his state by giving him money. there's probably precious little about Chris Christie's politics that we the public don't know, because I highly doubt that he's the type of person to play it close to the chest or even be capable of holding secret opinions.
he's been pretty clear about his disapproval of Obama and his approval of Romney. I just don't see him as a guy who says one thing but means another. one thing I do know is that conservatives need to back the fuck off of him about it.
/irrelevant rant.
|
On November 01 2012 09:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Chris Christie has probably been awake for three days, is flying around, hugging grieving wives and grandmothers, some of whom have lost everything. he's looking at his state, the state he is in charge of and the people he has been elected to lead, and it's torn to shreds in some places. the worst part is that he can't do anything for a lot of them, not really. the dude is probably on edge, doesn't give two shits about anything but New Jersey, and needs a lot of money. he is buttering the guy up who has the money, and is more than happy with anyone who wants to help him out.
i'll say this about the guy, he's honest and he speaks his mind and doesn't give a shit about what people think about it. everyone wants to make a big deal about his comments as if they reveal some inner thought or something, but that's obviously not who Chris Christie is. he snapped at the Fox News people because he's on edge and high-strung and they asked a stupid-ass question. he's praising Obama because Obama is helping him, and is going to help him, rebuild his state by giving him money. there's probably precious little about Chris Christie's politics that we the public don't know, because I highly doubt that he's the type of person to play it close to the chest or even be capable of holding secret opinions.
he's been pretty clear about his disapproval of Obama and his approval of Romney. I just don't see him as a guy who says one thing but means another. one thing I do know is that conservatives need to back the fuck off of him about it.
/irrelevant rant.
If by irrelevant rant you mean pseudo-Freudian crystal ball demagoguery, then sure.
|
On November 01 2012 09:10 urashimakt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 09:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:
you hear serious about bringing the person responsible to account, I hear "hold on a sec, I've gotta find me a fall guy real quick" Seems like a simple case of guilt before innocence, doesn't it? The rule is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty here, though.
maybe in the court of law, but I'm not a jury or a judge. I don't play by the innocent unless proven guilty game unless I am on a jury. in real life, you're either innocent or you're guilty, and the law's ability or inability to prove the charges is irrelevant to the fact of whether you broke the law or not.
and have we honestly gotten to where Obama's defense is "I'm innocent until proven guilty"?
|
On November 01 2012 09:21 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 09:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Chris Christie has probably been awake for three days, is flying around, hugging grieving wives and grandmothers, some of whom have lost everything. he's looking at his state, the state he is in charge of and the people he has been elected to lead, and it's torn to shreds in some places. the worst part is that he can't do anything for a lot of them, not really. the dude is probably on edge, doesn't give two shits about anything but New Jersey, and needs a lot of money. he is buttering the guy up who has the money, and is more than happy with anyone who wants to help him out.
i'll say this about the guy, he's honest and he speaks his mind and doesn't give a shit about what people think about it. everyone wants to make a big deal about his comments as if they reveal some inner thought or something, but that's obviously not who Chris Christie is. he snapped at the Fox News people because he's on edge and high-strung and they asked a stupid-ass question. he's praising Obama because Obama is helping him, and is going to help him, rebuild his state by giving him money. there's probably precious little about Chris Christie's politics that we the public don't know, because I highly doubt that he's the type of person to play it close to the chest or even be capable of holding secret opinions.
he's been pretty clear about his disapproval of Obama and his approval of Romney. I just don't see him as a guy who says one thing but means another. one thing I do know is that conservatives need to back the fuck off of him about it.
/irrelevant rant. If by irrelevant rant you mean pseudo-Freudian crystal ball demagoguery, then sure.
you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
but I'm sure you're right. Chris Christie doesn't have a reputation for saying what he thinks...
|
On November 01 2012 09:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Chris Christie has probably been awake for three days, is flying around, hugging grieving wives and grandmothers, some of whom have lost everything. he's looking at his state, the state he is in charge of and the people he has been elected to lead, and it's torn to shreds in some places. the worst part is that he can't do anything for a lot of them, not really. the dude is probably on edge, doesn't give two shits about anything but New Jersey, and needs a lot of money. he is buttering the guy up who has the money, and is more than happy with anyone who wants to help him out.
i'll say this about the guy, he's honest and he speaks his mind and doesn't give a shit about what people think about it. everyone wants to make a big deal about his comments as if they reveal some inner thought or something, but that's obviously not who Chris Christie is. he snapped at the Fox News people because he's on edge and high-strung and they asked a stupid-ass question. he's praising Obama because Obama is helping him, and is going to help him, rebuild his state by giving him money. there's probably precious little about Chris Christie's politics that we the public don't know, because I highly doubt that he's the type of person to play it close to the chest or even be capable of holding secret opinions.
he's been pretty clear about his disapproval of Obama and his approval of Romney. I just don't see him as a guy who says one thing but means another. one thing I do know is that conservatives need to back the fuck off of him about it.
/irrelevant rant.
IT'S NOT CHRIS CHRISTIE'S FAULT FOR SAYING SOMETHING POSITIVE ABOUT OBAMA WHEN OBAMA DOES SOMETHING POSITIVE GUYS! ALSO CHRIS IS ONE OF THE HONEST, CARING, HARD-WORKING, GODFULL POLITICIANS WHOSE BOOTS ARE DAILY PULLED BY THEIR STRAPS OUT OF THE MUD OF ADVERSITY!
© Chris Christie For President
|
On November 01 2012 09:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 09:21 farvacola wrote:On November 01 2012 09:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Chris Christie has probably been awake for three days, is flying around, hugging grieving wives and grandmothers, some of whom have lost everything. he's looking at his state, the state he is in charge of and the people he has been elected to lead, and it's torn to shreds in some places. the worst part is that he can't do anything for a lot of them, not really. the dude is probably on edge, doesn't give two shits about anything but New Jersey, and needs a lot of money. he is buttering the guy up who has the money, and is more than happy with anyone who wants to help him out.
i'll say this about the guy, he's honest and he speaks his mind and doesn't give a shit about what people think about it. everyone wants to make a big deal about his comments as if they reveal some inner thought or something, but that's obviously not who Chris Christie is. he snapped at the Fox News people because he's on edge and high-strung and they asked a stupid-ass question. he's praising Obama because Obama is helping him, and is going to help him, rebuild his state by giving him money. there's probably precious little about Chris Christie's politics that we the public don't know, because I highly doubt that he's the type of person to play it close to the chest or even be capable of holding secret opinions.
he's been pretty clear about his disapproval of Obama and his approval of Romney. I just don't see him as a guy who says one thing but means another. one thing I do know is that conservatives need to back the fuck off of him about it.
/irrelevant rant. If by irrelevant rant you mean pseudo-Freudian crystal ball demagoguery, then sure. you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. but I'm sure you're right. Chris Christie doesn't have a reputation for saying what he thinks...
But you just said he was "high strung" and "on edge", indicating that only an altered Chris Christie would make such a statement. Look, you are reading into the psychological state of a man using very shallow engagements with his actual person, not to mention making basic assumptions in terms of trends in human behavior while under duress. What if Chris Christie thrives on stress, loves the mucking about and uses it to take charge and make political moves? Maybe he's the sort of pragmatic Jersey boy who sees an opportunity to set up a bipartisan trend of favor that'll continue on into the next four years? Maybe he is just tired and pissy. The point is that speculation here is inevitably hollow.
Edit: Yes, you're a demagogue, you sound like you're rehashing Limbaugh's last 5 minute filler before the break.
|
On November 01 2012 09:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Chris Christie has probably been awake for three days, is flying around, hugging grieving wives and grandmothers, some of whom have lost everything. he's looking at his state, the state he is in charge of and the people he has been elected to lead, and it's torn to shreds in some places. the worst part is that he can't do anything for a lot of them, not really. the dude is probably on edge, doesn't give two shits about anything but New Jersey, and needs a lot of money. he is buttering the guy up who has the money, and is more than happy with anyone who wants to help him out.
i'll say this about the guy, he's honest and he speaks his mind and doesn't give a shit about what people think about it. everyone wants to make a big deal about his comments as if they reveal some inner thought or something, but that's obviously not who Chris Christie is. he snapped at the Fox News people because he's on edge and high-strung and they asked a stupid-ass question. he's praising Obama because Obama is helping him, and is going to help him, rebuild his state by giving him money. there's probably precious little about Chris Christie's politics that we the public don't know, because I highly doubt that he's the type of person to play it close to the chest or even be capable of holding secret opinions.
he's been pretty clear about his disapproval of Obama and his approval of Romney. I just don't see him as a guy who says one thing but means another. one thing I do know is that conservatives need to back the fuck off of him about it.
/irrelevant rant.
I think you're mostly right, but I think you need to separate policy differences from leadership differences.
Christie and Obama are in the Executive branch of government. They do, and should, have say in domestic policies, but their ultimate job is in protecting the people.
Given Obama's helpfulness towards Christie and New Jersey, and given Romney's complete dismissal of federal assistance towards environmental disasters as we saw just recently in the debates, I wouldn't be so certain of Christie's feelings towards another Obama presidency. They may disagree on every policy that comes across our national discourse --- but maybe Christie is realizing that Obama is an actual leader, and Romney is just a political tool who would put ideology in front of people's lives.
Romney really does think States should fend for themselves against environmental disasters. And that's an insanely irresponsible thing for a President to think. "United we stand, divided we fall, unless you get hit by a hurricane, then you're on your own."
Should we separate our military into individual state militaries? Seems to be perfectly in line with some Republicans way of thinking. Texas can invade Iran, and I can be left out of the whole mess. Seems fair.
|
On November 01 2012 09:31 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 09:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 01 2012 09:21 farvacola wrote:On November 01 2012 09:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Chris Christie has probably been awake for three days, is flying around, hugging grieving wives and grandmothers, some of whom have lost everything. he's looking at his state, the state he is in charge of and the people he has been elected to lead, and it's torn to shreds in some places. the worst part is that he can't do anything for a lot of them, not really. the dude is probably on edge, doesn't give two shits about anything but New Jersey, and needs a lot of money. he is buttering the guy up who has the money, and is more than happy with anyone who wants to help him out.
i'll say this about the guy, he's honest and he speaks his mind and doesn't give a shit about what people think about it. everyone wants to make a big deal about his comments as if they reveal some inner thought or something, but that's obviously not who Chris Christie is. he snapped at the Fox News people because he's on edge and high-strung and they asked a stupid-ass question. he's praising Obama because Obama is helping him, and is going to help him, rebuild his state by giving him money. there's probably precious little about Chris Christie's politics that we the public don't know, because I highly doubt that he's the type of person to play it close to the chest or even be capable of holding secret opinions.
he's been pretty clear about his disapproval of Obama and his approval of Romney. I just don't see him as a guy who says one thing but means another. one thing I do know is that conservatives need to back the fuck off of him about it.
/irrelevant rant. If by irrelevant rant you mean pseudo-Freudian crystal ball demagoguery, then sure. you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. but I'm sure you're right. Chris Christie doesn't have a reputation for saying what he thinks... But you just said he was "high strung" and "on edge", indicating that only an altered Chris Christie would make such a statement. Look, you are reading into the psychological state of a man using very shallow engagements with his actual person, not to mention making basic assumptions in terms of trends in human behavior while under duress. What if Chris Christie thrives on stress, loves the mucking about and uses it to take charge and make political moves? Maybe he's the sort of pragmatic Jersey boy who sees an opportunity to set up a bipartisan trend of favor that'll continue on into the next four years? Maybe he is just tired and pissy. The point is that speculation here is inevitably hollow.
only the most unforgiving reader would perceive my comments as such, and only the most blind person would suggest, after watching the news, that Chris Christie does not have a rather full plate right now. we can see quite clearly that he is high strung, that itself is... self-evident... to anyone who has seen him speak in the last day or two.
onto whether this had anything to do with his "comments" or not, let's see. I would say... no shit it does. why would Chris Christie, a noted supporter of Mitt Romney and a person who has been also noted as watching this election and commenting on it, indicating some kind of caring about it, say: "i don't give a damn about Presidential politics right now" if there were not something more important than Presidential politics on his mind? and I don't think I would describe the red-eyed Christie who was consoling an old woman who lost everything as upbeat and loving it.
honestly though, my entire rant could have been summed up with: "dude, the guy is busy and it's highly unlikely that he was lying when he said he doesn't care about politics right now. conservatives should leave him alone, because he actually is too busy for politics." so, you know... pretty much what you said except without all the daggers dripping in loquacious poison.
On November 01 2012 09:28 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 09:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Chris Christie has probably been awake for three days, is flying around, hugging grieving wives and grandmothers, some of whom have lost everything. he's looking at his state, the state he is in charge of and the people he has been elected to lead, and it's torn to shreds in some places. the worst part is that he can't do anything for a lot of them, not really. the dude is probably on edge, doesn't give two shits about anything but New Jersey, and needs a lot of money. he is buttering the guy up who has the money, and is more than happy with anyone who wants to help him out.
i'll say this about the guy, he's honest and he speaks his mind and doesn't give a shit about what people think about it. everyone wants to make a big deal about his comments as if they reveal some inner thought or something, but that's obviously not who Chris Christie is. he snapped at the Fox News people because he's on edge and high-strung and they asked a stupid-ass question. he's praising Obama because Obama is helping him, and is going to help him, rebuild his state by giving him money. there's probably precious little about Chris Christie's politics that we the public don't know, because I highly doubt that he's the type of person to play it close to the chest or even be capable of holding secret opinions.
he's been pretty clear about his disapproval of Obama and his approval of Romney. I just don't see him as a guy who says one thing but means another. one thing I do know is that conservatives need to back the fuck off of him about it.
/irrelevant rant. IT'S NOT CHRIS CHRISTIE'S FAULT FOR SAYING SOMETHING POSITIVE ABOUT OBAMA WHEN OBAMA DOES SOMETHING POSITIVE GUYS! © Chris Christie For President
I didn't say any of that, and by the way, I don't like Chris Christie's politics all that much, and have said multiple times in this thread that he will never be President, and that I personally would not like to see him run. it's okay, guys, I'm not attacking Obama, and I'm not saying that poor Chris doesn't know what he's saying. I'm saying that him praising Obama is 100% reasonable and 100% normal and that in his position I would do the same thing. he needs help, Obama is giving him help. you usually do thank people who give you help.
|
On November 01 2012 09:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 09:31 farvacola wrote:On November 01 2012 09:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 01 2012 09:21 farvacola wrote:On November 01 2012 09:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Chris Christie has probably been awake for three days, is flying around, hugging grieving wives and grandmothers, some of whom have lost everything. he's looking at his state, the state he is in charge of and the people he has been elected to lead, and it's torn to shreds in some places. the worst part is that he can't do anything for a lot of them, not really. the dude is probably on edge, doesn't give two shits about anything but New Jersey, and needs a lot of money. he is buttering the guy up who has the money, and is more than happy with anyone who wants to help him out.
i'll say this about the guy, he's honest and he speaks his mind and doesn't give a shit about what people think about it. everyone wants to make a big deal about his comments as if they reveal some inner thought or something, but that's obviously not who Chris Christie is. he snapped at the Fox News people because he's on edge and high-strung and they asked a stupid-ass question. he's praising Obama because Obama is helping him, and is going to help him, rebuild his state by giving him money. there's probably precious little about Chris Christie's politics that we the public don't know, because I highly doubt that he's the type of person to play it close to the chest or even be capable of holding secret opinions.
he's been pretty clear about his disapproval of Obama and his approval of Romney. I just don't see him as a guy who says one thing but means another. one thing I do know is that conservatives need to back the fuck off of him about it.
/irrelevant rant. If by irrelevant rant you mean pseudo-Freudian crystal ball demagoguery, then sure. you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. but I'm sure you're right. Chris Christie doesn't have a reputation for saying what he thinks... But you just said he was "high strung" and "on edge", indicating that only an altered Chris Christie would make such a statement. Look, you are reading into the psychological state of a man using very shallow engagements with his actual person, not to mention making basic assumptions in terms of trends in human behavior while under duress. What if Chris Christie thrives on stress, loves the mucking about and uses it to take charge and make political moves? Maybe he's the sort of pragmatic Jersey boy who sees an opportunity to set up a bipartisan trend of favor that'll continue on into the next four years? Maybe he is just tired and pissy. The point is that speculation here is inevitably hollow. only the most unforgiving reader would perceive my comments as such, and only the most blind person would suggest, after watching the news, that Chris Christie does not have a rather full plate right now. we can see quite clearly that he is high strung, that itself is... self-evident... to anyone who has seen him speak in the last day or two. onto whether this had anything to do with his "comments" or not, let's see. I would say... no shit it does. why would Chris Christie, a noted supporter of Mitt Romney and a person who has been also noted as watching this election and commenting on it, indicating some kind of caring about it, say: "i don't give a damn about Presidential politics right now" if there were not something more important than Presidential politics on his mind? and I don't think I would describe the red-eyed Christie who was consoling an old woman who lost everything as upbeat and loving it. honestly though, my entire rant could have been summed up with: "dude, the guy is busy and it's highly unlikely that he was lying when he said he doesn't care about politics right now. conservatives should leave him alone, because he actually is too busy for politics." so, you know... pretty much what you said except without all the daggers dripping in loquacious poison.
Ahh yes, but loquacious poison doesn't even permit a SAVING THROW! The effects shall be kicking in soon enough.
Edit: Just to keep things relevant, here's an article detailing Romney's recent campaign efforts in Florida with a very odd name. The Freudian slip is deadly with this one.
Romney backers go bare-knuckles in Fla.
CORAL GABLES, Fla. — With six days until the election and polls nearly tied in most critical battlegrounds, the relative cease-fire between President Obama and Mitt Romney in the days after a hurricane ravaged the East Coast remained intact Wednesday — but their campaigns were a different story.
As Obama toured the damage in New Jersey with Gov. Chris Christie, Romney spent his first full day of campaigning since Hurricane Sandy's landfall talking about his ideas, urging donations to the Red Cross and avoiding even a mention of Obama's name.
His effort succeeded at his first rally in Tampa, where supporters crowded into an airplane hangar on the cool, cloudless morning packed with such Florida political stars as former governor Jeb Bush and U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio.
|
On November 01 2012 08:55 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 08:51 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 08:42 kwizach wrote:The information there seems to come from interviews with "American, European and Israeli officials involved in the program, as well as a range of outside experts". What's unusual about this? Bob Woodward wrote a similar book about the Afghan surge under Obama. edit: the second article is apparently about the leaks that happened later, and it makes clear Obama and his administration are very serious about holding the person responsible for the leaks accountable. I don't really see what here is supposed to indicate the leaks are not taken seriously. if you're looking for a justification, you're not getting one. there are hundreds of articles that a simple google search will unearth on this topic. seriously, just stop now. even if you convince me i was wrong (which you really can't, as it's just a factor in my opinion), i've said multiple times that it's not even what convinced me to vote for Romney. there is no point to debating it with me. I'm not denying the leaks happened - I read about them myself when they did. I thought you had evidence of them happening for political gains, which I thought was the reason you were very disappointed with the Obama administration on the matter. Apparently, it wasn't the case, and the administration took the leaks seriously. I therefore have my answer.
Someone within the administration leaked them, and the only purpose for the leak was political gain. This is basically known. The answer nobody knows is "who" within the administration leaked them and if they were told to. Of course the top brass are going to pretend they know nothing and "take them very seriously." They'd do that whether or not it was them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
