I think Christie is finished

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see that this is too bad for him. He retains plausible deniability...

He isn't going to have plausible deniability for long. There are already four different members of his staff involved.

And how many of Obama's staff were involved with the Benghazi cover up using the fake story of a video causing the attack?

zzzzzzzzzzz...... coverup of what. Has everyone agreed that the administration did not provide adequate security, and that it cost the lives of four of our own? Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes. Everybody does it. Doesn't make it right. Why do you think Christie had Obama visit after Sandy? Same thing. Different direction.

No, probably most politicians do acts of political favoritism. And maybe they trade votes to get bills passed. I can't think of that many times when they deliberately screw a group of the public out of political vindictiveness like this.

If you want to keep playing this "everyone does it" game, please tell me how Martin O'Malley or Jay Nixon or Bobby Jindal did something so deliberately evil to their own constituents. Each has been in office long enough, picked two dems and a republican, and three different regions of the country.

Now go. Tell me how any of them did it.
[Report Post]

Can you read? I said it doesn't make it right. I just pointed out that Christie playing up to Obama during Sandy was the same thing.

No. First you have to prove that "everybody does it". I do not believe that is true. I gave you three governors with substantial tenure behind them in two parties and three regions of the country. Your job is to show me that one of them did something as deliberately destructive to their own constituents out of political spite.

Until you do, we are not in agreement that 'everybody does it'.

[Fairfax]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hoboken was one of the worst hit by Sandy, sustaining more than $100 million in damage. Mayor Zimmer sought more that $100 million in Sandy relief aid, and according to Kornacki, just $342,000 went to the town, less than 1 percent of what they requested.

. That should be easy to confirm. If it is true that Hoboken received so little of the federal relief money, I can't imagine they will not be able to link the problem to the Governor. This is getting to be a Chicago style scandal.

You do realize that "Chicago-style scandals" were invented in New Jersey, right? And New York, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fox is not covering the Christie stuff. So he will be fine. Roger ailes really like him. Look for the republicans from the house and senate to move in and stop any investigate.

Ailes will be done.

I don't know what you consider coverage..... while it's not the 3 stories on MSNBC's main page, this is on Fox's homepage: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/18/romney-defends-christie-handling-bridge-controversy/?intcmp=latestnews

So the Fox story was that Romney supports Christie. Oh boy, that's fair and balanced. Because the most newsworthy thing to come out last night was Romney's opinion on it, not that

Hoboken got screwed by Christie on relief funds.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/19/nj-gov-christie-office-denies-claims-withholding-sandy-aid-funds/?intcmp=latestnews
Whether or not Hoboken "was screwed by Christie" has not been proven. Right now, these are accusations by the mayor and Christie is denying this. However, you might not realize this by reading the liberal media.

[Anonymous]

Fairfax wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hoboken was one of the worst hit by Sandy, sustaining more than $100 million in damage. Mayor Zimmer sought more that $100 million in Sandy relief aid, and according to Kornacki, just $342,000 went to the town, less than 1 percent of what they requested.

. That should be easy to confirm. If it is true that Hoboken received so little of the federal relief money, I can't imagine they will not be able to link the problem to the Governor. This is getting to be a Chicago style scandal.

You do realize that "Chicago-style scandals" were invented in New Jersey, right? And New York, of course.

Really? I thought it was a reference to the corruption, nepotism, and exercising of control prevalent with the mob or mafia in Chicago.

[Anonymous]

Mitt vetted Christie and ran the other way. No need to say anymore.

[Anonymous]

How about the new governor of Virginia. Paid Boyd Marcus for his endorsement. Then appointed him to ABC board. Way to go, Terry!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fox is not covering the Christie stuff. So he will be fine. Roger ailes really like him. Look for the republicans from the house and senate to move in and stop any investigate.

Ailes will be done.

I don't know what you consider coverage..... while it's not the 3 stories on MSNBC's main page, this is on Fox's homepage: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/18/romney-defends-christie-handling-bridge-controversy/?intcmp=latestnews

So the Fox story was that Romney supports Christie. Oh boy, that's fair and balanced. Because the most newsworthy thing to come out last night was Romney's opinion on it, not that

Hoboken got screwed by Christie on relief funds.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/19/nj-gov-christie-office-denies-claims-withholding-sandy-aid-funds/?intcmp=latestnews
Whether or not Hoboken "was screwed by Christie" has not been proven. Right now, these are accusations by the mayor and Christie is denying this. However, you might not realize this by reading the liberal media.

Really, it is a matter of public record that they have received very little money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see that this is too bad for him. He retains plausible deniability...

He isn't going to have plausible deniability for long. There are already four different members of his staff involved.

And how many of Obama's staff were involved with the Benghazi cover up using the fake story of a video causing the attack?

zzzzzzzzzzz...... coverup of what. Has everyone agreed that the administration did not provide adequate security, and that it cost the lives of four of our own? Yes.

Assume Christie caused a traffic jam, and then did some other political dirty tricks in Hoboken. Assume he did what MSNBC says.

The premise of this thread is that those scandals sink him as a candidate in 2016.

Are those scandals worse than Benghazi, where you just said "everyone agree(s) the administration did not provide adequate security..."? Is Hillary responsible for what you just said everyone agrees about? If so, is she "finished" by those four deaths, just as the OP of this thread suggests Christie is finished by a traffic jam and some back room political chicanery?

Which is worse?

[Anonymous]

neither Christie nor Clinton would be my choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see that this is too bad for him. He retains plausible deniability...

He isn't going to have plausible deniability for long. There are already four different members of his staff involved.

And how many of Obama's staff were involved with the Benghazi cover up using the fake story of a video causing the attack?

zzzzzzzzzzz...... coverup of what. Has everyone agreed that the administration did not provide adequate security, and that it cost the lives of four of our own? Yes.

Assume Christie caused a traffic jam, and then did some other political dirty tricks in Hoboken. Assume he did what MSNBC says.

The premise of this thread is that those scandals sink him as a candidate in 2016.

Are those scandals worse than Benghazi, where you just said "everyone agree(s) the administration did not provide adequate security..."? Is Hillary responsible for what you just said everyone agrees about? If so, is she "finished" by those four deaths, just as the OP of this thread suggests Christie is finished by a traffic jam and some back room political chicanery?

Which is worse?

The damage was worse, but everyone knows that Clinton did not mean to get her own personnel killed.

[Anonymous]

She didn't show much sympathy to the families when she kept talking about the guy with the video.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:neither Christie nor Clinton would be my choice.

Then who IS your choice, big talker?

[Anonymous]

This is 2014. The election is in 2016. I will watch and wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She didn't show much sympathy to the families when she kept talking about the guy with the video.

Wingnuts see what they want to see in anything.