• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Chris Christie: 2/3s of Keynote speech before 1 mention of Mitt

I have been saying for almost a full year now that Obama should not run again. His appearance on the ballot places the entire US government in danger of being taken over by the right wing and moving us down the Road to Serfdom and corporate fascism. As such - we simply need a better nominee who can win.

I am not clear about your question about Dems in state legislatures. Could you restate that or elaborate on it a bit?

I was referring to your comment re fair and open elections. I assume you are referring to more states requiring voter identification cards. If you are alluding to anything else, it probably better belongs in the Conspiracy Forum. ;)
 
Christie would be embarrassing. We would be feeding the american stereotype of being fat and pouting. Picture Christie visiting other nations, representing the US? It would be pathetic. And thats just his appearance, nvm his attitude when he doesn't get what he wants... hes a 7 year old brat that is extremely large. U can hear the guy breathing heavily on tv, always out of breath from walking up those 4 stair to the podium. He's almost as much of a tool as willard romney... ok thats pushin it


Since most Americans are overweight his weight is a political plus.

As far as what other countries think of the USA? F... em!
 
I was referring to your comment re fair and open elections. I assume you are referring to more states requiring voter identification cards. If you are alluding to anything else, it probably better belongs in the Conspiracy Forum. ;)

Yes, I am referring to that right now. I expect it will get worse. Right wingers right here on this this forum and else where have been floating the idea of severely restricting the very concept of WHO can vote for some time now. They have advocated connecting the vote to the payment of a tax and would willingly disenfranchise scores of millions of people.

A right wing take over of ALL branches of the federal government could well see these efforts continue and expanded.
 
Yes, I am referring to that right now. I expect it will get worse. Right wingers right here on this this forum and else where have been floating the idea of severely restricting the very concept of WHO can vote for some time now. They have advocated connecting the vote to the payment of a tax and would willingly disenfranchise scores of millions of people.

A right wing take over of ALL branches of the federal government could well see these efforts continue and expanded.

Well, even if you're right about the extremist view you contend exists, there's one branch no one can take control of...and that's SCOTUS. Other than crackpots on DP, there's no one out there of any consequence advocating a poll tax. That will never happen. State ID's are the responsibility of individual states which is why I said that, to have that happen, a whole bunch of Dem legislatures would have to go rogue.

You seem inordinately worried about this election, Haymarket. Me, I think it's going to be a horse race and Romney will lose. Now. You do have your pulse on what a Democratic legislature thinks, so I find that to be somewhat encouraging.
 
Well, even if you're right about the extremist view you contend exists, there's one branch no one can take control of...and that's SCOTUS. Other than crackpots on DP, there's no one out there of any consequence advocating a poll tax. That will never happen. State ID's are the responsibility of individual states which is why I said that, to have that happen, a whole bunch of Dem legislatures would have to go rogue.

You seem inordinately worried about this election, Haymarket. Me, I think it's going to be a horse race and Romney will lose. Now. You do have your pulse on what a Democratic legislature thinks, so I find that to be somewhat encouraging.

But that is the way these things happen. The right wing - and that includes both very conservative folks and the libertarian right - float these ideas around for a while hoping they take hold. Then they slowly introduce them in pet legislatures here and there to gain some actual credibility. Within a few years its a matter of open discussion and anything is possible.

A few years ago floating the idea that we should end Social Security was considered as political suicide. Now major party candidates are embracing it. Even though there is no evidence of any significant election fraud, we have state after state controlled by the right wing enacting laws to change the way people vote which will result in some people losing their vote.

The radical right wing knows well the old Mark Twain story of the frog and the pot of boiling water. And right now we are all frogs watching the pot being filled up.
 
Even though there is no evidence of any significant election fraud, we have state after state controlled by the right wing enacting laws to change the way people vote which will result in some people losing their vote.

The radical right wing knows well the old Mark Twain story of the frog and the pot of boiling water. And right now we are all frogs watching the pot being filled up.

The only people who will lose their votes by having to provide identification are those that are too dumb to get a state I.D. My mom is 85 years old -- she wouldn't let her state I.D. expire for nothin'. Ha! The idea of needing to prove one is who they say they are in order to perform one's highest duty as an American citizen is so basic that I believe the only reason Democrats are crying foul is because there is voter fraud, and they know it.

Now, since I'm thread-derailing, you may have the last word on the subject. ;)
 
The only people who will lose their votes by having to provide identification are those that are too dumb to get a state I.D. My mom is 85 years old -- she wouldn't let her state I.D. expire for nothin'. Ha! The idea of needing to prove one is who they say they are in order to perform one's highest duty as an American citizen is so basic that I believe the only reason Democrats are crying foul is because there is voter fraud, and they know it.

Now, since I'm thread-derailing, you may have the last word on the subject. ;)

Maggie. :)

That is my last word. :2wave:
 
Well, even if you're right about the extremist view you contend exists, there's one branch no one can take control of...and that's SCOTUS. Other than crackpots on DP, there's no one out there of any consequence advocating a poll tax. That will never happen. State ID's are the responsibility of individual states which is why I said that, to have that happen, a whole bunch of Dem legislatures would have to go rogue.

You seem inordinately worried about this election, Haymarket. Me, I think it's going to be a horse race and Romney will lose. Now. You do have your pulse on what a Democratic legislature thinks, so I find that to be somewhat encouraging.

It is still Obama's election, yes, though the media will make it closer this time.
 
Listening to Christie's speech last night, it was hard not to get the impression that he is running for office. Oh....that's right, he is.

The clear indication from Christie's speech last night is that he is positioning himself to run in 2016 after Obama finishes his second term. Christie and the other strong GOP contenders stayed out of the 2012 race.

Christie gave a good speech, but it was clear that he is not campaigning for Romney, he is campaigning for Christie.
 
The only people who will lose their votes by having to provide identification are those that are too dumb to get a state I.D. My mom is 85 years old -- she wouldn't let her state I.D. expire for nothin'. Ha! The idea of needing to prove one is who they say they are in order to perform one's highest duty as an American citizen is so basic that I believe the only reason Democrats are crying foul is because there is voter fraud, and they know it.

Now, since I'm thread-derailing, you may have the last word on the subject. ;)

By sheer coincidence, voter laws implemented by a Republican state government in Florida are drastically out of proportion impacting Democrat registrations. You really think these efforts aren't targeted at specific communities?

In Sauk City, Wisconsin, the office is only open five days a year. It's happening in all sorts of states that all happen to be controlled by Republican legislatures. When these laws go into effect, coincidentally service in districts that vote heavily Democrat scale waaaay back. Voter fraud? How about voter suppression? One of them is happening everywhere. One of them is not. Every time they look into the number of actual fraudulently cast votes, the number is tiny, and a lot of the fraudulent votes wouldn't have been stopped by ID laws. (i.e. ineligible felons casting votes)

You've been fooled into chasing a boogeyman so that you ignore actual suppression of the democratic process.
 
Last edited:
Really? That's your criticism of him? Not his political views or his policy decisions as governor, but his appearance?


My criticism of him is the same criticism he launches at the President. He has higher unemployment (9.8%) than the national average and is near dead last in job creation. Pretty difficult to take him seriously when he criticizes the President for the same things while his state is in the tank.
 
My criticism of him is the same criticism he launches at the President. He has higher unemployment (9.8%) than the national average and is near dead last in job creation. Pretty difficult to take him seriously when he criticizes the President for the same things while his state is in the tank.

His state also has the fourth worst debt situation in the country.
 
Hilary Clinton should have been the Democratic Party nominee this year. President Obama should have not run for a second term.

Having said that, let us assume that Obama wins reelection this year. I suspect that in four years Romney will not win the GOP nomination as he will be damaged goods and a loser in the eyes of many in the party. Hilary will be too old.

The field should be wide open on both sides.

You're assuming here that if Romney wins, he won't succeed in turning the economy around. My vote is ABO, but I think he might be able to do it.
 
You're assuming here that if Romney wins, he won't succeed in turning the economy around. My vote is ABO, but I think he might be able to do it.

I suspect that no matter who wins the scenario will more or less see a significant advance of the economy over the next four years. Perhaps not in the first year - but before the four are ended we will back singing HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN.
 
No, it's unfortunate that republicans fielded a extremely weak field, when Obama has so much going against him and was vulnerable for an incumbent. But 4 years of Romney do not justify the 8 years of Hillary that will follow. Obama has been ineffective pushing any agenda, and that would not change. NO, IMHO, 4 more years of Obama, and then take the White House for the 8 years that follows is a better strategic plan. Romney will simply diminish the conservative brand, demoralize the base, and not only give away the executive branch in 2016, but probably drag down at least one house with him.

You have seen the halfwits and morons that are the Democrats?
 
Back
Top Bottom