• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chris Christie ‘Not Being Invited’ to CPAC

Rand Paulis is a flaming hypocrit and any and all derogatory words not allowed here.

He is not a perfect messenger for libertarian ideas, but still he did speak for military cuts, against Patriot Act abuses - and speaking now, with Ron Wyden, against the drone program - to name only the aspects of libertarian politics a "progressive" should be pleased with.
 
1. and 7. are contradictory.
absolutely no contradiction. Gary Johnson is one of the few politicians who is willing to put country before party. he will not subordinate the party's demands to the nation's needs. that is a good thing. that Gary Johnson attracts voters from both parties is also a good thing. notice there is no contradiction there

Since all the meat in the sandwich doesn't matter if no one knows where the bread is!
the person who cares about what is good will seek out and find something satisfying and nourishing. those who don't care will instead eat ****
any dining invitations you offer will not be accepted

No one knows about Gary Johnson. No one cares about him either.
he is not well known. just as it did to Ron Paul four years prior, the GOP did everything possible to ensure that his brand of conservatism was not viewed by the onlooking public. but then you may be fond of the present GOP hierarchy and how it operates

2. You'd be surprised. Paulbots defending Rand Paul already.
yes, but not in significant numbers to propel him to national candidacy. and if you are interested in a wager, where you are willing to bet on rand paul's success in 2016, send me a PM; i welcome taking someone else's money in a sure thing

3. Hahahahaha I was going to take you seriously, but it seems it is you who have no idea what you are talking about! Ron Paul supporters did not start the Tea Party. I don't even know why you guys want to think that since you apparently hate all tea party members that aren't libertarians, and those libertarians need to fall in line with Ron Paul's ideas...
you have no clue about the formation of the tea party or my involvement with it in 2007-2008
Ron Paul's campaign, being unable to participate in the established GOP nominating process, scheduled its own meetings coincident with those of the GOP. often in the adjoining space. those meetings were termed Tea Parties by the Ron Paul supporters in attendance. these gatherings of Ron Paul supporters were quite effective in expressing views outside the established party line. which was why the wingers co-opted the Tea Party brand after 2008 as a way to avoid identifying themselves to be affiliated with or supportive of the party of dicknbush and mccain

4. No it's not. Gary Johnson is just a paultard.
while i recognize your "tard" reference may be an appropriate one, i disagree that it describes Gary Johnson

Christie is a governor who has a national presence and who leads in times of crises! He also throws punches at the establishment and kills anybody who makes fun of his weight. Johnson has got none of that.
and that Gary Johnson does not throw his weight around like christie is a very good thing. christie goes out of his way to piss people off. if he were black he would be known as THE angry black man of this political era. but christie is a fat guy, obviously without self discipline in very visible ways. christie is good telling it like it is until he has to account for his own (in)actions. then he becomes VERY defensive and combative. appealing to some, maybe, but certainly not a character trait that will win a national election. as presidential candidate, the media will roll him in mud in short order [apologies for the visual]

5. As outlined before on this thread, his boldness when dealing with both parties makes him more appealing not the other way around. Democrats like Christie and Republicans like Christie. The only people who don't are principled Tea Partiers and liberaltarians.
i admire your optimism but reality is certain to disappoint you. any voter who seeks a temperate candidate will NOT vote for christie. he turns off as many as he turns on - from both parties. that is the lesson christie will have to learn if he decides to take a shot at the white house

6. What major player likes Gary Johnson in both parties?
why is that important? it is the voters at large, not some major player within the political party, who will need to turn out to vote for and elect Gary Johnson
to offset a campaign contribution disadvantage he will have to appeal to the average citizen for help ... if i recall, that's what the winning presidential candidate did in '08

8. Gary Johnson like Ron Paul first ran as a Republican. So that alone makes him a RINO!
since the GOP would not allow him to play in its reindeer games leading to the selection of a presidential candidate, the truth is the republican party left Gary Johnson

Then, he ran on the libertarian ticket focusing mostly on drugs.
that was not his focus. of the 11 issues he posted here Issues
drug reform is one of them. he properly recognizes that the current prohibition mimmicks that one repealed in the 30's. common sense, actually [recognizing common sense is no longer all that common]

Well, here's his farewell State of the State Address, in which he explains to New Mexico the things which were important to him, the accomplishments of which he is most proud. Virtually all of which are various programs he has increased. Various spending he has increased. Various pork barrels. Stateline - New Mexico State of the State Address 2002
don't think you could have read his speech and then made those absurdly wrong statements. so, hold on while i correct your 'work':
Virtually all of which are various programs he has increased.
from Gary Johnson's final state of the state speech [the emphasis will be mine]:
I can also report to you that your state government is smaller and better. We have reduced the number of state employees by 1.25% since I took office while at the same time putting in systems that better serve our citizens. Prior to my administration, the state employee head count grew at an annual rate of 2.8%. If that trend had continued, the employee count would now be approximately 25,000 instead of the current 20,000.
Finally, having made all of this progress and more, my administration has also held the line on taxes. In the last seven years there has been no increase in taxes. I repeat, no new taxes. I will always remember when I signed the repeal of the six-cent gas tax in 1995 and I thank the Legislature for that.
... we need an income tax cut to stimulate the economy in New Mexico. Clearly, we have needed an income tax cut in New Mexico. An income tax cut will help New Mexico families and businesses. Is this an easy sell and will it happen this session? Probably not. Should it happen? Absolutely. We have had seven years of surplus and no meaningful income tax reduction.
This is not a time to expand government programs. Last legislative session, I vetoed $147 million in general fund capital outlay and $110 million in recurring spending. In retrospect that was the right thing to do because it allowed us to increase our reserve fund to $450 million. ... I am going to make the following promise to every citizen in New Mexico: I am not going to walk out this office in December 2002 and leave the state the way that I inherited it in January 1995. Today reserves are at $450 million. In 1995, because of under-funding by the Legislature and the Governor prior to my taking office, reserves went down to $22 million.
i am still looking for those pork barrels you were referring to

Mr. Johnson did veto many bills, but clearly not nearly enough.
so, that he alone vetoed more bills than the other 49 governors COMBINED was not enough to prove he is willing to act the way he speaks. yes, he ONLY vetoed 32% of the bills that arrived for his signature. hopefully, you can now recognize why any credibility you may have once possessed about thing politic has now dissipated
He did not veto appropriations bills.
he only did that over one thousand times
hopefully, you can now recognize why any credibility you may have once possessed about thing politic has now dissipated
Those would have been the important ones to veto! He did not veto all the outrageous growth in the state government that was occurring during his tenure. In fact, as you can see from his address above, he took pride in much of this growth. He could have vetoed the cancerous growth. The debt. The taxes. The waste. He could have stopped it. But, either he had no desire to do so (this is what I think is the truth), or, the most charitable possibility is that he had the desire, but lacked the courage to do it. Since, New Mexico has line item veto, not only could he have vetoed budget bills outright, he could have crossed out billions of dollars of spending, line by line. Did he? No.
he only did that over one thousand times
Track Record
i am not laughing with you

I look forward to your response!!!
i hope it was as satisfying for you as it was for me. hell, that felt so good i need a cigarette

You won't be able to defend your man now, especially since he's been exposed to be almost exactly like Christie what you think Christie is like as Governor!!! Johnson's just another libertarian hypocrite.
if only authentic critics were so lacking in their own criticisms as your own
 
Its a repetition of what others think with no commentary, opinions, or direction for the purpose of this thread. Also a drive by since the op has yet to follow up.

what he posted as his own observation meets the requirement of the forum as i read it
and i saw no requirement that the OP must return to his thread
have you PM'd a mod to get their take or reported the post as mis-located so that they can evaluate your concerns
 
other than Gary Johnson, christie is the only republican prospect who has even a remote chance of winning national election
exclude them from contention and open the door to yet another democratic presidency


I bet Democrats LOVED McCain when he was the maverick moderate running against W Bush in that Republican primary. And then how much those same Democrats declared how evil, greedy, incompetent he was when McCain did become the president.

It would be no different for Christie. Democrats praise Christie and declare he is a great government in polls - his greatness being in criticizing Republicans and praising Obama. But if Christie were the candidate for president, those same Democrats and so-called independents would do a 100% reversal.
 
what he posted as his own observation meets the requirement of the forum as i read it
and i saw no requirement that the OP must return to his thread
have you PM'd a mod to get their take or reported the post as mis-located so that they can evaluate your concerns

Yes but they dont pay attention, so I thought I would ask the OP to try and make a substantial post. Im sorry that you took it personally.
 
Yes but they dont pay attention, so I thought I would ask the OP to try and make a substantial post. Im sorry that you took it personally.

hell, i don't take anything here personally
i'm a retired old fart just having fun
but i saw nothing wrong with the OP's OP and explained why
going to refrain from further posts about this in order not to derail the actual (interesting) on-topic thread discussion
 
He is not a perfect messenger for libertarian ideas, but still he did speak for military cuts, against Patriot Act abuses - and speaking now, with Ron Wyden, against the drone program - to name only the aspects of libertarian politics a "progressive" should be pleased with.
I agree that more leaders should speak out against military/patriot at abuses.

The problem I see is that the Patriot Act was established under Bush. If you did not complain about it then, you look silly complaining about it now. Same thing with the ridiculous military spending. Republicans recently forced the military to buy tanks they did not want or need. I did not hear Rand Paul making a federal case out of that.

While I can agree with some of Rand Paul's beliefs, his style is nauseatingly hypocritical. He is now happy to be sucking off a gov't and thinks his job is to make sure nobody else does.
 
Chris is another McCain. He thinks he can get Dem voters by playing footsies with Dem's in DC.

Not that I care about Chris Christie...because I really don't. But as the old saying goes...."All's fair in love, war, and politics." If there was an ounce of honesty among the monarchy which lives in the Kingdom of Washington, then I might feel a weeeee bit emotionally connected to our system of government and politics.

As long as we, the electorate, continue to repeat the same voting behaviors over and over and over again...expecting different results. Need I say more? To our nation's political machines, we've become predictable, gullible, brainwashed, and divided by our nations political philosophies so much that we've allowed the government to become a self-will-run-riot entity.

It doesn't really matter who does or doesn't speaks at CPAC. Or any other political rally regardless of the title or political affiliation, as far as that goes. The purpose of these organization...isn't about the welfare of our nation...its about them. These little organizations get together to help their brain trust create a new, improved KY Jelly.
 
hell, i don't take anything here personally
i'm a retired old fart just having fun
but i saw nothing wrong with the OP's OP and explained why
going to refrain from further posts about this in order not to derail the actual (interesting) on-topic thread discussion
Not to beat a dead horse, but I agree with you wholeheartedly. If you do not like a thread, stop posting in it unless the infraction is blatant.

Another thing that gets my goat is people asking a thread creator why they post on that topic. I saw one thread where over 30 people asked the original poster in one way or another why he always want so talk about gun control.

People should at least act like they have some class.
 
he is not well known. just as it did to Ron Paul four years prior, the GOP did everything possible to ensure that his brand of conservatism was not viewed by the onlooking public. but then you may be fond of the present GOP hierarchy and how it operates


Ron Paul was NOT a major player he was just a loud baby crying about liberty and unfairness. He was a lot like Obama minus the liberty parts. The reason Gary Johnson didn't make any headway was precisely because only 2% of the population even knew who he was. Then, when Ron Paul failed in his conspiracy campaign to chop the GOP in half with liberty delegates, which we are still trying to clean up as it is. A few random paulbots went over to the Gary Johnson train solely because he was the only other option since Ron Paul wasn't officially on the ballot.

If you think the GOP is divided the libertarians are even more so, I have yet to meet two libertarians who agree with anything the other says, unless if it's basic talking points. You say that Christie has no more of a shot? Well, Christie was one of the wild cards that some Republicans wanted in place of Romney. The Anybody but Romney crowd, were talking about random candidates jumping into the field; Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, and Chris Christie. Gary Johnson was never mentioned! That's not a conspiracy, that's because his ideas mainly his stance on drugs, did not appeal to Republicans!
 
Ron Paul has been successfully marginalized for some time now. Much like Nadar, both men helped the process along by gilding the lily (taking that bridge too far in some of their positions).
 
I agree that more leaders should speak out against military/patriot at abuses.

The problem I see is that the Patriot Act was established under Bush. If you did not complain about it then, you look silly complaining about it now. Same thing with the ridiculous military spending.

Rand Paul hardly could "complain about it then" - he was not elected yet. His father certainly did, and how.

And let me remind you what the vote was, back in 2001: the Senate passed the Patriot Act by 98-1. The day before, the House voted 357-66. This is hardly a partisan Republican sin.

Paul is new. I like some of what he does, not everything. And he is certainly unpolished. But I'm prepared to be patient, without getting my hopes too high.

At the risk of angering purists, I would say that for the first time in living memory, we have a visible libertarian-ish minority in both chambers. In the Senate, we have Paul, Mike Lee and Jeff Flake. Maybe Ted Cruz could be added, I'm not sure yet.

This is not a bad development - not from the "progressive" POV either, I would guess.
 
Rand Paul hardly could "complain about it then" - he was not elected yet. His father certainly did, and how.

And let me remind you what the vote was, back in 2001: the Senate passed the Patriot Act by 98-1. The day before, the House voted 357-66. This is hardly a partisan Republican sin.

Paul is new. I like some of what he does, not everything. And he is certainly unpolished. But I'm prepared to be patient, without getting my hopes too high.

At the risk of angering purists, I would say that for the first time in living memory, we have a visible libertarian-ish minority in both chambers. In the Senate, we have Paul, Mike Lee and Jeff Flake. Maybe Ted Cruz could be added, I'm not sure yet.

This is not a bad development - not from the "progressive" POV either, I would guess.

Speaking as a democrat, I think Chris Christie is a good canidate, his leadership during hurricane sandy showed he really cared for the people of his state. He is a republican who If he wins the presidency I would not object to. I still would prefer govenor Andrew cuomo or former govenor Brian Schweitzer to win for the democrats, but I could tolerate christe.
 
Speaking as a democrat, I think Chris Christie is a good canidate, his leadership during hurricane sandy showed he really cared for the people of his state. He is a republican who If he wins the presidency I would not object to. I still would prefer govenor Andrew cuomo or former govenor Brian Schweitzer to win for the democrats, but I could tolerate christe.

Incredibly, we are inching toward a consensus here: I would prefer Gov Gary Johnson, or Gov Bill Weld, or Gov Chris Christie, but I could tolerate a DINO like Schweitzer or Cuomo.....

(If you think that the Democratic Party of Pelosi and Reid is going to give Schweitzer or Cuomo Jr any real chance - ....Think again).
 
Not to beat a dead horse, but I agree with you wholeheartedly. If you do not like a thread, stop posting in it unless the infraction is blatant.

Another thing that gets my goat is people asking a thread creator why they post on that topic. I saw one thread where over 30 people asked the original poster in one way or another why he always want so talk about gun control.

People should at least act like they have some class.

Same goes for you. If you dont like my asking the OP to elaborate on the topic, then ignore me.
 
Incredibly, we are inching toward a consensus here: I would prefer Gov Gary Johnson, or Gov Bill Weld, or Gov Chris Christie, but I could tolerate a DINO like Schweitzer or Cuomo.....

(If you think that the Democratic Party of Pelosi and Reid is going to give Schweitzer or Cuomo Jr any real chance - ....Think again).

Schweitzer is a surprisingly progressive govenor, given the fact he represented a state like Montana. And cuomo has already shown his progressive streak by supporting gay marriage.

Besides cuomo has enough money to make a impact in the primary. I like Hilliary but I personally believe it is time to let the new generation of democrats lead the party. I think Hilliary deserves a well earned retirement.
 
Rand Paul hardly could "complain about it then" - he was not elected yet. His father certainly did, and how.

And let me remind you what the vote was, back in 2001: the Senate passed the Patriot Act by 98-1. The day before, the House voted 357-66. This is hardly a partisan Republican sin.

Paul is new. I like some of what he does, not everything. And he is certainly unpolished. But I'm prepared to be patient, without getting my hopes too high.

At the risk of angering purists, I would say that for the first time in living memory, we have a visible libertarian-ish minority in both chambers. In the Senate, we have Paul, Mike Lee and Jeff Flake. Maybe Ted Cruz could be added, I'm not sure yet.

This is not a bad development - not from the "progressive" POV either, I would guess.
I never said the Patriot Act was not passed on a bipartisan basis. I said if you did not complain about it then, complaining about it now makes you look silly, no matter who you are. While Ron Paul may have complained, the republican masses did not.
 
Same goes for you. If you dont like my asking the OP to elaborate on the topic, then ignore me.
I was ignoring you by replying to someone besides you. This is the first time I ever addressed you. I'll be happy to go back to what I WAS doing, i.e., ignoring you.
 
While Ron Paul may have complained, the republican masses did not.

Of course. But what makes Rand Paul closer to the "republican masses" than to ....Ron Paul?!
 
Of course. But what makes Rand Paul closer to the "republican masses" than to ....Ron Paul?!
Well at the time the Patriot Act was passed, certainly Rand Paul would have had a bigger bully pulpit than the average Joe the Plumber. Do you have any evidence that Rand Paul ever spoke out against the Patriot Act when it was first being enacted?
 
Chris Christie ‘Not Being Invited’ to CPAC - ABC News

Speculation is that this is about Christie's handling of Hurricane Sandy.

No, I think it has more to do with his signing on to Obamacare, and expanding Medicaid in New Jersey. But here's the deal. By doing this, he is saving the state money. Yes, he can gripe about the federalization of medicine in New Jersey, but in the end, he did what was best for his citizens, given the choices that he had available.
 
For such staunch individualists, the Republican party really doesn't like it when someone goes against the establishment...
 
I started a thread on this topi some time back - as Democrats on the forum are declaring Christie to be the most effective, honest and legitimate politician in the USA. So I poised the question of should Democrats nominate Christie as their candidate for president in 2016?

INSTANTLY, Democrats on the forum declared that an absurd question.

Never let the enemy make your battle plan. Democrats ONLY like Christie because of his anti-Republican and pro-Obama statements. But not one of them would vote for him.
 
I started a thread on this topi some time back - as Democrats on the forum are declaring Christie to be the most effective, honest and legitimate politician in the USA. So I poised the question of should Democrats nominate Christie as their candidate for president in 2016?

INSTANTLY, Democrats on the forum declared that an absurd question.

Never let the enemy make your battle plan. Democrats ONLY like Christie because of his anti-Republican and pro-Obama statements. But not one of them would vote for him.
I would not vote for him, but not for that reason. I think he is a bully and rude to the public. Not something people should admire in their leaders.

In addition, why shouldn't democrats nominate who they want and not who you want?
 
Back
Top Bottom