Conquer Club

Anyone else following this weird scandal?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25686050

The media are more concerned about this than Benghazi and the IRS combined.

It was a stupid move to make, but apparently Christie is known for being a bully if he doesn't get his way. Just another thin skinned politician.

Not really, no. I did hear about it though. Weird.

Yeah well Benghazi turned out to be a weird non-scandal that boiled down to the phrasing of a press briefing, and the IRS stuff was a storm in a tea party.

The odd thing about the Christie bit is how far he keeps digging.

It appears based on the article Sym linked that Christie didn't know about it. Is there evidence that he knew about it and tried to cover it up?

thegreekdog wrote:It appears based on the article Sym linked that Christie didn't know about it. Is there evidence that he knew about it and tried to cover it up?

Yup- he explicitly stated that it wasn't political and that the bridge was closed due to a "traffic study". This has been shown to be lies.

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:It appears based on the article Sym linked that Christie didn't know about it. Is there evidence that he knew about it and tried to cover it up?

Yup- he explicitly stated that it wasn't political and that the bridge was closed due to a "traffic study". This has been shown to be lies.

That wasn't in your link. I've read two things (your link and the below thing from US News), neither of which indicated that he knew about it. The US News article did talk about a traffic study that Christie referred to that Port Authority didn't know about.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01 ... dge-fiasco

Apologies, I meant to provide a few more links at the end of my last post. It's an ongoing story, so I don't have a good summary at the moment. It doesn't look good for him though.

Symmetry wrote:Apologies, I meant to provide a few more links at the end of my last post. It's an ongoing story, so I don't have a good summary at the moment. It doesn't look good for him though.

At best (for him), it shows that he's incompetent or negligent in choosing some of his staff, but I think most politicians have had similar problems in the past so not sure that's going to sink him. He should be more concerned about being a slightly right of center Republican from the north affecting his nomination than whether he made bad choices in staff.

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Apologies, I meant to provide a few more links at the end of my last post. It's an ongoing story, so I don't have a good summary at the moment. It doesn't look good for him though.

At best (for him), it shows that he's incompetent or negligent in choosing some of his staff, but I think most politicians have had similar problems in the past so not sure that's going to sink him. He should be more concerned about being a slightly right of center Republican from the north affecting his nomination than whether he made bad choices in staff.

This does seem to be the most generous opinion available.

Night Strike wrote:The media are more concerned about this than Benghazi and the IRS combined.

It was a stupid move to make, but apparently Christie is known for being a bully if he doesn't get his way. Just another thin skinned politician.

Apparently it's worse to close some traffic lanes over political differences than it is to sic the IRS on people unfairly over political differences.

Go figure....

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Apologies, I meant to provide a few more links at the end of my last post. It's an ongoing story, so I don't have a good summary at the moment. It doesn't look good for him though.

At best (for him), it shows that he's incompetent or negligent in choosing some of his staff, but I think most politicians have had similar problems in the past so not sure that's going to sink him. He should be more concerned about being a slightly right of center Republican from the north affecting his nomination than whether he made bad choices in staff.

Now Christie is a big bag of garbage, so just let me make that clear first. But, for the sake of fairness and some objectivity, I'd have to give him a nod of approval for at least firing some people.

Look at our Presidents, especially of late. Their advisers do some pretty horrendous things (Holder, the AG being a prime example) and do they get fired? Nope.

This is a bad thing, IMO. Loyalty be damned, people screw up then sack them. Going against Christie's supposed good gesture of at least getting rid of some key advisers is that these advisers know right from the get go that they are the shield bearers. They as supposed to take the axe before it cuts their boss.
This is why politicians who refuse to hold their advisers accountable for terrible actions is so frustrating, that's what advisers are there for in part. To fall on the sword so their boss doesn't have to.

Just my opinion, otherwise I don't really care that much about Christie. It's not like I'm ever going to vote for him in any circumstance one way or the other.
Everyone gets what they deserve at some point I suppose.

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Apologies, I meant to provide a few more links at the end of my last post. It's an ongoing story, so I don't have a good summary at the moment. It doesn't look good for him though.

At best (for him), it shows that he's incompetent or negligent in choosing some of his staff, but I think most politicians have had similar problems in the past so not sure that's going to sink him. He should be more concerned about being a slightly right of center Republican from the north affecting his nomination than whether he made bad choices in staff.

All I can say is these are not the actions of a president to be. We have had enough idiots in office.

Then again, I suppose it really depends on who the other options are. Lately, the choices have been between mediocre, poor and poorer at best. (and i mean in both of the major parties, along with a few ancillaries that seem to have way too much influence).

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Apologies, I meant to provide a few more links at the end of my last post. It's an ongoing story, so I don't have a good summary at the moment. It doesn't look good for him though.

At best (for him), it shows that he's incompetent or negligent in choosing some of his staff, but I think most politicians have had similar problems in the past so not sure that's going to sink him. He should be more concerned about being a slightly right of center Republican from the north affecting his nomination than whether he made bad choices in staff.

All I can say is these are not the actions of a president to be. We have had enough idiots in office.

Then again, I suppose it really depends on who the other options are. Lately, the choices have been between mediocre, poor and poorer at best. (and i mean in both of the major parties, along with a few ancillaries that seem to have way too much influence).

I do like Chris Christie (I'm fairly certain that's why Symmetry created this thread), but I would not vote for him for president (most likely). I would prefer to see a more libertarian Republican candidate and he does not fit that mold.

I didn't create this thread because you like Chris Christie. I actually kind of liked him before this debacle, but mainly because I share his love of the Boss. If it's any consolation though, I will not be voting for him as president either.

Just another reminder of how fucked up the American culture of politics is and shows "public servants" on all levels of government have misplaced priorities and lack scruples.

patches70 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:The media are more concerned about this than Benghazi and the IRS combined.

It was a stupid move to make, but apparently Christie is known for being a bully if he doesn't get his way. Just another thin skinned politician.

Apparently it's worse to close some traffic lanes over political differences than it is to sic the IRS on people unfairly over political differences.

Go figure....

Also worse than to tell someone to stand down when an ambassador's life is in jeopardy.

Not that I was going to vote for him, but he did to have a certain air about him that would've changed the stereotype that the Conservatards were old, boring white men.

I heard what he did was illegal. What could be the consequences for what he did?

Army of GOD wrote:Not that I was going to vote for him, but he did to have a certain air about him that would've changed the stereotype that the Conservatards were old, boring white men.

I heard what he did was illegal. What could be the consequences for what he did?

He might get appointed to a seat on the cabinet.