• 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

hahahaha Gary Johnson? He is just as bad as Rand Paul, all people like him for is his stance on Marijuana.
don't think so
like christie, Gary Johnson was a republican governor of a blue state; only term limits keep him from still being its governor
and that had nothing to do with marijuana. it was about Johnson having the courage to do what he promised to do (vetoed 750 bills - 32%; more than all other 49 governors combined Track Record)
it is that rare trait which serves him well

I don't even think he really believes the economic stuff he talks about.
ok. share with us what he has done which conflicts with his economic stances
i look forward to seeing this portion of your reply

Besides Gary Johnson is no longer a major player.
he has never been a major player. to many of us, who have little use or respect for the established parties. that he is free to be his own person is a good thing

The Paulbots will move towards his son, just because of the Paul in his last name, none will remember that he basically betrayed them when endorsing Romney.
being someone who appreciated many aspects of Ron Paul's politics, there is little to be appreciated from the son
don't know how many of us there are, but i doubt his surname is going to be enough to overcome all of the objections many have to rand paul's personal ideology

Even though, Rand Paul is a lot more Tea Party like than his father.
wish you were joking. it was Ron Paul adherents who began the tea party, when Ron Paul was uninvited to the GOP's nomination process
only when the republican party/mccain crashed and burned in 2008, following the disaster of dicknbush, did the former GOP reich wingers co-opt the 'tea party' to avoid the embarrassment of being known as 'republicans'

Putting Christie on the same level with Gary Johnson is just sad!
what is really sad is having no idea about what one posts ... as we will soon again observe in your response

Christie appeals to many more people. No one even knows who Gary Johnson is.
christie does have better name recognition. that is his lone advantage when comparing him to Gary Johnson. but his negatives - with members of both parties - will hurt his prospects whereas Gary Johnson is viewed positively by members of both parties - at least among those who know something about him
 
CPAC featured speakers will include:

Romney
Rubio
Jindal
Jeb Bush
Rand Paul
Ryan
Palin (seriously, she's going to be a speaker at CPAC)
Perry
Santorum

As we can see, and not surprisingly, CPAC plans to play to the right of right and then pander to the extreme right from there.

Jeb Bush and Rand Paul hardly belong to the "right of right" - a solid moderate and an almost-libertarian. Neither do Paul Ryan, Rubio or Jindal - all three representing a new centrist core forming rapidly. Romney hardly belongs anywhere at all. Perry's brand of conservatism is simply too outdated to matter (and not especially "rightist" either, if you ignore brash pronouncements). Palin has made too many confused and contradictory statements to be defined as anything but an entertainer.

So, there is Santorum. The sole representative of the "social conservatives" (and nowhere close to the "right" if "free-marketism" is required to be there, by your definitions.

If anything, Christie - who had actually managed to curb the public sector pensions, cap taxes and move toward balancing budgets - would shift the list of speakers to the right, by his presence. He is certainly far "to the right", as governor, from Mitt Romney.
 
Last edited:
Progressive Conservatives while the Democrats should move more left.

I see your point but I think two diametrically opposed philosophies are needed. This creates gridlock and the government as a rule is forced to move slowly. I believe the founders designed the system this way.
 
Progressive Conservatives while the Democrats should move more left.

If by "Progressive Conservatives" you mean imperial megalomaniacs like Teddy Roosevelt and technocratic meddlers like Herbert Hoover - that's what Republicans already are, in practice, when not making campaign speeches, most of them.

If the Democrats move any further to the left, they will self-destruct. Which is not a bad idea.
 
don't think so
like christie, Gary Johnson was a republican governor of a blue state; only term limits keep him from still being its governor
and that had nothing to do with marijuana. it was about Johnson having the courage to do what he promised to do (vetoed 750 bills - 32%; more than all other 49 governors combined Track Record)
it is that rare trait which serves him well


ok. share with us what he has done which conflicts with his economic stances
i look forward to seeing this portion of your reply


he has never been a major player. to many of us, who have little use or respect for the established parties. that he is free to be his own person is a good thing


being someone who appreciated many aspects of Ron Paul's politics, there is little to be appreciated from the son
don't know how many of us there are, but i doubt his surname is going to be enough to overcome all of the objections many have to rand paul's personal ideology


wish you were joking. it was Ron Paul adherents who began the tea party, when Ron Paul was uninvited to the GOP's nomination process
only when the republican party/mccain crashed and burned in 2008, following the disaster of dicknbush, did the former GOP reich wingers co-opt the 'tea party' to avoid the embarrassment of being known as 'republicans'


what is really sad is having no idea about what one posts ... as we will soon again observe in your response


christie does have better name recognition. that is his lone advantage when comparing him to Gary Johnson. but his negatives - with members of both parties - will hurt his prospects whereas Gary Johnson is viewed positively by members of both parties - at least among those who know something about him

Kudos, Bubba! :bravo:

I have followed Gray Johnson and voted for Gary Johnson. You nailed it. In fact, you were bang on when you stated that Johnson would still be governor if it weren't for term limits. I suspect that when Cyrylek said that know one knows who Johnson is, he was speaking for himself.
 
I see your point but I think two diametrically opposed philosophies are needed. This creates gridlock and the government as a rule is forced to move slowly. I believe the founders designed the system this way.

Absolutely. Social-democratic (socialist, whatever) and liberal (in the orginal sense, "libertarian") political philosophies.

Neither modern American "conservatism" nor modern American "liberalism" are good candidates - they are not internally consistent, not actionable in the real world - and are not much more than a smokescreen for mismatched electoral coalitions of special interests.
 
1. he has never been a major player.

2. but i doubt his surname is going to be enough to overcome all of the objections many have to rand paul's personal ideology

3. it was Ron Paul adherents who began the tea party.

4. christie does have better name recognition that is his lone advantage when comparing him to Gary Johnson.

5. but his negatives - with members of both parties - will hurt his prospects

6. whereas Gary Johnson is viewed positively by members of both parties

7. at least among those who know something about him

8. share with us what he has done which conflicts with his economic stances

1. and 7. are contradictory. Since all the meat in the sandwich doesn't matter if no one knows where the bread is! No one knows about Gary Johnson. No one cares about him either.
2. You'd be surprised. Paulbots defending Rand Paul already.
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...
4. No it's not. Gary Johnson is just a paultard. 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.
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.
6. What major player likes Gary Johnson in both parties?
8. Gary Johnson like Ron Paul first ran as a Republican. So that alone makes him a RINO! Then, he ran on the libertarian ticket focusing mostly on drugs. 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

Mr. Johnson did veto many bills, but clearly not nearly enough. He did not veto appropriations bills. 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.


I look forward to your response!!! 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.
 
Last edited:
The lack of original content.

why is this found insufficient?:
Speculation is that this is about Christie's handling of Hurricane Sandy.

that was certainly enough to let me know that the OP believes this failure to receive an invite is the direct result of christie's lauding the president for his response to hurricane sandy
 
Kudos, Bubba! :bravo:

I have followed Gray Johnson and voted for Gary Johnson. You nailed it. In fact, you were bang on when you stated that Johnson would still be governor if it weren't for term limits. I suspect that when Cyrylek said that know one knows who Johnson is, he was speaking for himself.

When did Cyrylek say that?! Cyrylek voted for Gary Johnson. And it was the first time ever when Cyrylek voted for a presidential candidate without misgivings.
 
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

Not even close. Christie doesn't, and never had, a chance in hell of either securing the nomination or winning the election for POTUS. Besides, it's much too early in the cycle to be predictive about presidential candidates, mid-terms are are almost two years off as it is and we're going to have to get through those first.

On a side note, I don't believe America will sign onto a fat POTUS while we're going through this "OMG, how'd we get so obese" phase.
 
Last edited:
I would make the argument that any canidate that Republicans put forth will have to at least be semi-popular in more liberal states. Christie has a much better chance winning Ohio, Wisconsin, Virginia, Michigan than say a Bobby Jindal or someone further right.
 
If by "Progressive Conservatives" you mean imperial megalomaniacs like Teddy Roosevelt and technocratic meddlers like Herbert Hoover - that's what Republicans already are, in practice, when not making campaign speeches, most of them.

If the Democrats move any further to the left, they will self-destruct. Which is not a bad idea.

Progressive Conservative by the Canadian definition like Brian Mulroney.
 
I see your point but I think two diametrically opposed philosophies are needed. This creates gridlock and the government as a rule is forced to move slowly. I believe the founders designed the system this way.

Our government is more efficient than yours and we have had three parties one Progressive Conservative, one Liberal, and one centre-left/socialist. We actually get stuff done it seems while the U.S. is always in a deadlock. I guess it also helps that when we reach a disagreement over a budget we go to elections.
 
Just goes to show how hard headed some Republicans and Conservatives can be.

Always complaining that politicians put politics ahead of the country.

But when his state was in trouble, he put his big boy pants on, rose above politics and worked with the president and other leaders to help his state.

Meaning he'd probably do the same thing for the country.
 
Progressive Conservative by the Canadian definition like Brian Mulroney.

Well, this is an entirely different political landscape...But I guess, considering that Progressive Conservatives were more of Gladstonian liberals - the "Blue Tories" - yeah, directionally, it would be a good shift.
 
Criste IMO- has two personal problems, with getting elected in 2016, his weight, which Only he can do something about, We like to think of our Potus in Prime Health and tho he may be now_ How about 4 years from now, at his current weight ...
his Outspoken praise for Obama in A crisis for NJ of hurricaine Sandy, I understand, WHY, he did it.. He Needed Help then and Money then.. for that I admire Him,.............. However he didn't have to personalize it with a Hug on national TV with the election a few weeks away............ I like Criste, I think eventually he will make a heck of a Potus, But not in 2016,

Yeah, they have been saying we will Elect a Fat Man long before we Elect one with a Beard or Mustache.....guess the parties want clean shaven men. Oh and Women too. No hair-lip pieces. :lol:
 
Jeb Bush and Rand Paul hardly belong to the "right of right" - a solid moderate and an almost-libertarian.

Rand Paul, a moderate Republican? We cannot be thinking of the same person.

Neither do Paul Ryan, Rubio or Jindal - all three representing a new centrist core forming rapidly.

Check yourself, Cyrylek. Centrists? Cough <blowjob>, cough.

Romney hardly belongs anywhere at all. Perry's brand of conservatism is simply too outdated to matter (and not especially "rightist" either, if you ignore brash pronouncements). Palin has made too many confused and contradictory statements to be defined as anything but an entertainer.

I suspect they invited Romney out of obligation. Perry and Palin. If one had any doubts about where CPAC's head is I can answer in five words: Ryan, Perry, Palin, Paul and Santorum. The direction CPAC has decided to take is - Circle.

So, there is Santorum. The sole representative of the "social conservatives" (and nowhere close to the "right" if "free-marketism" is required to be there, by your definitions.

I need you to understand something, I'm not that damn stupid. We might debate on a few others, but I just listed five people (5 out of 9) who are social conservatives. Santorum is one of the five. If you believe that those five are the future of conservatism, conservatism has no future.
 
Just goes to show how hard headed some Republicans and Conservatives can be.

Always complaining that politicians put politics ahead of the country.

But when his state was in trouble, he put his big boy pants on, rose above politics and worked with the president and other leaders to help his state.

Meaning he'd probably do the same thing for the country.

Putting his big boy pants on didn't mean he had to don knee pads as well, that was just something HE decided to do himself.
 
Plus he is polling high in 7 other states. Still do you think he is big in the Midwest and out West?

Unfortunately, polling high almost two years before a mid-term and almost four years until a presidential election, counts for absolutely nothing.
 
Progressive Conservatives while the Democrats should move more left.

Progressive Conservatives.....and what is that suppose to be? Why should Progressive Ideology even be considered?
 
"Christie and Obama, sitting in a tree, K...I...S...S...I...N...G!

For all of our newly minted loyal Americans, that's a historical American child's schoolyard rhyme.
 
Back
Top Bottom