I think Christie is finished

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:no one blamed 9/11 on a video

OTOH when you ignore the memo "Bin Laden Determined to Strike America", it's a lot worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Snort. What a profile in courage you are.

We'd be a lot better off right now if people had watched and listened rather than jumped on the bandwagon for a candidate who was clearly not ready for prime time.

+1 could not agree with you more.

Yeah, Bush was clearly not ready to be president. Nothing like enthusiastically invading a country that wasn't a threat to us and was not connected at all to 9/11 to demonstrate how clueless you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bill Clinton survived all the punches in 1992. Let's see what kind of a politician Christie really is.

Yeah, I tend to think Christie will survive but it all depends on whether anything else damaging surfaces. And I am not a fan of Christie - just realistic about the length of time till the next national election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:no one blamed 9/11 on a video

Uh, because there was no video at the time. This is a complete non sequitur. But do feel free to bring some real facts to the debate at some point in time.

[Anonymous]

Now *here's* a video appropriate to the situation. (Can't get the hook out of my head, either!)

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/bruce-springsteen-jimmy-fallon-sing-chris-christie-bridge-scandal-article-1.1580143

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bill Clinton survived all the punches in 1992. Let's see what kind of a politician Christie really is.

Yeah, I tend to think Christie will survive but it all depends on whether anything else damaging surfaces. And I am not a fan of Christie - just realistic about the length of time till the next national election.

Bill Clinton already had a reputation as a womanizer and a "Slick Willie" politician. The problem with Christie is that his whole persona is being a "different" kind of politian who is straightforward, honest and doesn't play political games. That image gone now regardless of what happens in this investigaton and all that is left is a fat, abrasive. ideologically squishy moderate conservative. Good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

He's not even a moderate conservative. What he is is a conservative from a moderate/liberal state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
no one blamed 9/11 on a videoUh, because there was no video at the time. This is a complete non sequitur. But do feel free to bring some real facts to the debate at some point in time.

video was not responsible for Benghazi either. There was no protest.

[Anonymous]

Obama promised to be a new kind of politician more than anybody in history.

He turned out to be a lying sack of crap who is also completely incompetent and loves stonewalling . No wonder his approval is below bush .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obama promised to be a new kind of politician more than anybody in history.

He turned out to be a lying sack of crap who is also completely incompetent and loves stonewalling . No wonder his approval is below bush .

Whether or not your statement is true, what does it have to with Chris Christie? Can you read?

[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?

Benghazi is not a scandal. It is a made up thing by republicans. The Christie thing will be going on well in to the primaries. So yes it will sink him. He will have to answer questions about and money will walk away.

I am the poster you quoted.

Lets use your terms. Benghazi is not a scandal. Lets assume I agree that it isn't a "scandal". My questions still stand. A bi-partisan senate committee (chaired by a democat) says the deaths there were preventable. Is the non-scandalized preventable death of four state department employees more damaging to Mrs. Clinton than a traffic jam and back-room political games in Hoboken are to Christie?

I think you are saying the Christie stuff is more damaging. Those on the right think that it seems sorta unbalanced when the claim of this thread is that Christie's problems kill his chances, but Hillary's do not. In fact, a lot of conservatives probably think it is laughably one sided to think this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Benghazi is not a scandal. It is a made up thing by republicans. The Christie thing will be going on well in to the primaries. So yes it will sink him. He will have to answer questions about and money will walk away.

I am the poster you quoted.

Lets use your terms. Benghazi is not a scandal. Lets assume I agree that it isn't a "scandal". My questions still stand. A bi-partisan senate committee (chaired by a democat) says the deaths there were preventable. Is the non-scandalized preventable death of four state department employees more damaging to Mrs. Clinton than a traffic jam and back-room political games in Hoboken are to Christie?

I think you are saying the Christie stuff is more damaging. Those on the right think that it seems sorta unbalanced when the claim of this thread is that Christie's problems kill his chances, but Hillary's do not. In fact, a lot of conservatives probably think it is laughably one sided to think this.

Christie deliberately screwed people. Hillary Clinton did not. Her people got killed in a war-torn country. Any President is going to lose troops or civilians working for our government, and there will always be a case that it was preventable.

[Anonymous]

They're both wrong. Christie and Clinton.

[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?

Benghazi is not a scandal. It is a made up thing by republicans. The Christie thing will be going on well in to the primaries. So yes it will sink him. He will have to answer questions about and money will walk away.


I am the poster you quoted.

Lets use your terms. Benghazi is not a scandal. Lets assume I agree that it isn't a "scandal". My questions still stand. A bi-partisan senate committee (chaired by a democat) says the deaths there were preventable. Is the non-scandalized preventable death of four state department employees more damaging to Mrs. Clinton than a traffic jam and back-room political games in Hoboken are to Christie?

I think you are saying the Christie stuff is more damaging. Those on the right think that it seems sorta unbalanced when the claim of this thread is that Christie's problems kill his chances, but Hillary's do not. In fact, a lot of conservatives probably think it is laughably one sided to think this.

It is laughably to think Benghazi, a right wing funding exercise, will have any impact on Clinton. The report did not blame Clinton. The Benghazi thing is so worn out it is only seen as a Fox/conservative grifter thing. Clinton will be able to raise money and run with no drag from Benghazi. The Christie thing is not a "traffic jam". It is a misuse of government power that will put people in jail. The us da just got involved interviewing witnesses this weekend. This will be an active investigation well in to primary season. The money people will stay away until it is done. Did you see Christie's change of attitude on Sunday? He was at fund raisers over the weekend and got a lot of "we will wait and see how things turn out, talk to us next year". He needs money and commitments now, not next year.

[Anonymous]

It is laughably to think Benghazi, a right wing funding exercise, will have any impact on Clinton. The report did not blame Clinton. The Benghazi thing is so worn out it is only seen as a Fox/conservative grifter thing. Clinton will be able to raise money and run with no drag from Benghazi. The Christie thing is not a "traffic jam". It is a misuse of government power that will put people in jail. The us da just got involved interviewing witnesses this weekend. This will be an active investigation well in to primary season. The money people will stay away until it is done. Did you see Christie's change of attitude on Sunday? He was at fund raisers over the weekend and got a lot of "we will wait and see how things turn out, talk to us next year". He needs money and commitments now, not next year.

At this point, "What difference does it make?"