Trump & Religious Principles

[Postvieww]

Anyone who votes for him is making a conscious effort to ignore his appalling behaviour. You'd need to speak to the individuals as to how they manage to do it.

So the choice is what you deem “appalling behavior “ and complete incompetence. Hmm let me think! I’ve decided I will vote for a proven track record and one who does honor the constitution. Kamala is not even as smart as Joe with dementia.

 

[Postvieww]

Now I know that you are not arguing sincerely. There is literally no-one in politics today in Australia that could come anywhere near being a candidate for PM that has one tenth the problems that Trump has had and still exhibits on a daily basis. I challenge you to name anyone who could.

Could someone as flighty as Kamala be elected to any position in your country much less PM? She is not as smart as Joe even with his dementia.

 

[stevevw]

Then don't vote for anyone on the left! Perceived problems with any one candidate doesn't excuse the factual problems of another. Stop using what you think others have done to excuse what Trump has done. Deal with it as it is.

I am. Your not getting it. Their not excusing Trump. They think his flaws are not as bad as the Left, and Harris flaws and lack of morals. Its all subjective.

For every bad example they bring about Trump they have double the bad examples of what they think about Harris and the Left. If they say Trumps a felon for fruad they say the Left, Biden and Harris are the experts at fraud. If they say Trump is a dictator they say the Left have been abusing government power though lies and manipulations of information and lawfare.

Its not a case of who has done wrong but who has done the least amount of wrong in the eyes of each side.

I'm not arguing for the left. I am not making comparisons. I'm pointing out the immorality of Trump. His lies. His infidelity. His complete unsuitability of a.person considered for high office. 'The other guys are just as bad' is completely and utterly ignoring the problem.

Yes everyone knows this. The Left have been continually pointing this out for years even to the point of obsession. But it still has not changed peoples minds.

You can't ignore the other guys when theres only two options. Both sides have to be weighed against each other. Otherwise what are we doing just having fun criticing particular people at random. Obsessing over their morality. We could do that to many people why Trump.

No we have to compare and that will come down to who is least worse and not who is a clean skin.

Which is how I guess you can live with supporting someone as atrociously inept in all ways for the presidency. You ignore his faults.

Well put it this way for those who want to vote in the US elections (i am note sure if its compulsory). But voters will be choosing from two candidates who are not the best and who have their own faults. So either way a wrong choice will be made. So voters are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Thats why I think this time around its going to be more about reality and not ideology. The reality of how people are living. Whether they believe their life is better under the Left right now or there needs to be a change and the Right have more to offer in that regard.

Now I know that you are not arguing sincerely. There is literally no-one in politics today in Australia that could come anywhere near being a candidate for PM that has one tenth the problems that Trump has had and still exhibits on a daily basis. I challenge you to name anyone who could.

No we have never had a non politician manage to become priminister. I don;t think our system allows it. But we have had politicians with some similar ideas and positions and they became very popular. Like Pauline Hanson. Even primeminister Tony Abbot a Conservative was very popular and his party for some time.

Though the systems are different I see similarities in the positions. Basically its the old Liberal progressives verses the traditional Conservatives. Its just the positions have become more extreme and polarised. The Left focus on issues like abortion. Why do you think abortion is the number one issue for the Left. Why that one. That is the most religiously polarised issue.

Its become a war of ideology and not just your everyday run of the mill election. Its been brewing for years. That people cannot see that says that don;t really understand what is going on.

In some ways its like the Christian and Muslim war where each side believes they are right and yet have opposing ideologies.

 

[stevevw]

So the choice is what you deem “appalling behavior “ and complete incompetence. Hmm let me think! I’ve decided I will vote for a proven track record and one who does honor the constitution. Kamala is not even as smart as Joe with dementia.

Its not even that. Its more that people are voting for the person that doesn't treat them like Sh**. Or an idiot and that there is something wrong with them for simply expressing their political beliefs. Rather than accepting that as a different and valid belief under the consitution.

They have been doing this to people for a long time with PC and CC. Disrespecting their rights to holding an opposing view whether thats religious and now even political.

Now its nation wide, half the nation is cancelled for holding an opposing view. In doing so the Leftist ideologues must take them out like they would take out a poor Christian church or Baker or Novelist who happened to disagree with the State religion.

You are right in that it is about the Consistution, those truths the west were built on like the freedom to hold beliefs without being attacked for it. Its that fundemental disdain people see when the Left just dismiss half the population as deplorables that is alone driving people to reject the Left.

It is a breach of the Constitution and its happening now and not in some hypothetical demonised future Trump presidency.

 

[stevevw]

The weird thing is Australia is having a State election which is regarded as less important that the Federal one is represents the nation, who we are and what direction we should be going in. But I heard the other day a Labor ad which is the Left in Australia. The weird thing is at the top of the bill as an important issue for the Left was abortion up with the economy, health, education and immigration.

I had to check as this was unusual. We have not made abortion such an issue. So it seems Australia is the same as the US but a little behind and perhaps not as extreme. Though we do have our share of radicals like the maniac who stabbed some priest at the alter. But not attempted assassinations. But I would not be surprised the way things are going.

 

[Postvieww]

What on EARTH would he have to do before people say that enough is enough? What would he have to do for you to say that?

I am not voting for the man Trump was in previous years as to the women issues. I am voting for the man he is today. We could scrutinize both Biden and Kennedy on this topic as well. Secondly Trump is not guilty of everything the left tries to paint him with. No you are right Trump is not a perfect man but he does love this country and its founders intentions. Name another man in my country or yours who could endure the attacks Trump has endured and still be standing. I seriously doubt you can come up with one. Trump could live a life of complete luxury with no worldly cares but chosen to serve the freedom loving people of this nation. Literally putting his life on the line to do so. You should recognize that the reason liberals hate him so much is that he is the person today who is actually a threat to their quest for complete political control. I am not voting for a perfect man I am voting to save this nation from the liberal cesspool that is the alternative.

 

[Whyayeman]

Not as a conservative Republican. He does hate Trump so I guess that does give him points with you.BTW nice dodge on the Kamala question. I understand why.

Could it be that this thread is not about Harris, rather it is about Trump's principles?

 

[Bradskii]

So the choice is what you deem “appalling behavior “ and complete incompetence. Hmm let me think! I’ve decided I will vote for a proven track record and one who does honor the constitution. Kamala is not even as smart as Joe with dementia.

Anyone who doesn't admit his behaviour as being appalling is living in a different reality to me.

 

[Bradskii]

Could someone as flighty as Kamala be elected to any position in your country much less PM? She is not as smart as Joe even with his dementia.

We're talking about Trump's character. Not even in comparison to anyone else. He doesn't deserve to be considered. Again, not compared to anyone, but in his own right.

 

[Bradskii]

I am. Your not getting it. Their not excusing Trump. They think his flaws are not as bad as the Left, and Harris flaws and lack of morals. Its all subjective.

For every bad example they bring about Trump they have double the bad examples of what they think about Harris and the Left. If they say Trumps a felon for fruad they say the Left, Biden and Harris are the experts at fraud. If they say Trump is a dictator they say the Left have been abusing government power though lies and manipulations of information and lawfare.

Its not a case of who has done wrong but who has done the least amount of wrong in the eyes of each side.

Yes everyone knows this. The Left have been continually pointing this out for years even to the point of obsession. But it still has not changed peoples minds.

You can't ignore the other guys when theres only two options. Both sides have to be weighed against each other. Otherwise what are we doing just having fun criticing particular people at random. Obsessing over their morality. We could do that to many people why Trump.

No we have to compare and that will come down to who is least worse and not who is a clean skin.

Well put it this way for those who want to vote in the US elections (i am note sure if its compulsory). But voters will be choosing from two candidates who are not the best and who have their own faults. So either way a wrong choice will be made. So voters are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Thats why I think this time around its going to be more about reality and not ideology. The reality of how people are living. Whether they believe their life is better under the Left right now or there needs to be a change and the Right have more to offer in that regard.

No we have never had a non politician manage to become priminister. I don;t think our system allows it. But we have had politicians with some similar ideas and positions and they became very popular. Like Pauline Hanson. Even primeminister Tony Abbot a Conservative was very popular and his party for some time.

Though the systems are different I see similarities in the positions. Basically its the old Liberal progressives verses the traditional Conservatives. Its just the positions have become more extreme and polarised. The Left focus on issues like abortion. Why do you think abortion is the number one issue for the Left. Why that one. That is the most religiously polarised issue.

Its become a war of ideology and not just your everyday run of the mill election. Its been brewing for years. That people cannot see that says that don;t really understand what is going on.

In some ways its like the Christian and Muslim war where each side believes they are right and yet have opposing ideologies.

I'll use what the forum has available to me when I consider that reading some posts aren't worth my time. Adios.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Actually Kings dream is the very difference to the colorblind approach and the DEI approach even way back then. Civil rights sprang out from the Black church. The more racial aspect of the movement (making it all about race and power) sprang out of that which was more about deconstruction of the status quo through subversion and activism including violence.

This contrasted with King who took the colorblind aspproach and seen the equal community as the beloved community as Gods children. The black race power movement such as Malcom X and Black Panthers later became internal, through academia from which Critical Race theory and DEI later came. So the ideology began back then and became a war by the Critical theories.

The point is just like back then when Dr KIng was arguing for a peacefull and colorblind approach from the church the anti establishment including anti God movement began in opposition.

What is telling is that just like back then the Critical theories approach (which is an ideology and not fact) alienates the black church. Their ideas are based on decontructionism. Tear down society and rebuild a socialist Utopia. But as with back in the 60s and now 80% plus of black people are Christians. So DEI is actually anti Christian and deconstructs the black church and belief which is what has caused most of their disadvantage.

How Critical Race Theory Marginalizes the African American Christian Tradition
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1037&context=mjrl

The concerning that an element of that violent activism is coming back as we see with the BLM riots and the like. But not just related to blacks but as we have see with the Jews and violence against women and even Christians. As opposed to the colorblind Beloved community King envisioned.

Yes and so has Gods kingdom. Some things when done properly and peacefully take time. I have studied Dr King and there is a misconception about what he stood for. Some say he even supported the deconstructionist approach of the Black power movement.

But he was wise beyond most people. Saw Gods vision and not mans in how the Beloved community could overcome many differences. But like I said the Black power movement went underground and now has converged with a bunch of other activists and what we have today, the division, and hate in society is the result.

I actually study this and understand both sides. You have to to know the difference. I am not taking any side. I am just reporting and explaining. Most people are not aware of how DEI evolved through academia going back the post civil rights. I suggest you do some research on how the Critical theories developed and how this relates to what is happening in society today, in our public institutions.

You even agreed to an extent when you said that it is Christ, it is God who we must follow. So immediately we can see that the Left and their ideology and Woke DEI or whatever you want to call it, a progressive Utopia is anti God and Christ. It has actually destroyed the black church and community. Not just the blacks but everyone. It wants no God or gods only humankind as the god to construction social order in their own image and not Gods.


Considering that even as secular nations the west was build on God as that we are made in His image and on Christianity and what came from this such as Human Rights its very worrying that such an anto God power can rule over us.

No, you haven't studied King.

On September 15, 1963, four Black girls were killed in a bombing at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, King offered a eulogy

"These children--unoffending, innocent, and beautiful--were the victims of one of the most vicious and tragic crimes ever perpetrated against humanity.

And yet they died nobly. They are the martyred heroines of a holy crusade for freedom and human dignity. And so this afternoon in a real sense they have something to say to each of us in their death. They have something to say to every minister of the gospel who has remained silent behind the safe security of stained—glass windows. They have something to say to every politician [Audience:] (Yeah) who has fed his constituents with the stale bread of hatred and the spoiled meat of racism. They have something to say to a federal government that has compromised with the undemocratic practices of southern Dixiecrats (Yeah) and the blatant hypocrisy of right—wing northern Republicans. (Speak) They have something to say to every Negro (Yeah) who has passively accepted the evil system of segregation and who has stood on the sidelines in a mighty struggle for justice. They say to each of us, black and white alike, that we must substitute courage for caution. They say to us that we must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced the murderers. Their death says to us that we must work passionately and unrelentingly for the realization of the American dream." - Eulogy for the Martyred Children by Dr. King

"It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin...we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring." - Dr. King, Beyond Vietnam, 1967

"I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the last few years
I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great
stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate
who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace
which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods
of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of
time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of
good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more
bewildering than outright rejection." - Dr. King, Letter From Birmingham Jail, 1963

"I contend that the cry of black power is, at bottom, a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro. I think we've got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard, and what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the economic plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years." - Dr. King's 1966 interview with Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes

And I can say you don't understand Dr. King, because just like those who were upset at the riots of '66, but refused to question, challenge, or be critical of the social causes that resulted in those riots, just a few years ago we had demonstrations across this country, with some turning to rioting, and the response was simply to lump all protestors in with the rioters, and criticize the violence of the rioter--but refuse to question, challenge, or be critical of the underlying social causes. And when the answer was plastered everywhere: Black Lives Matter, because black lives were treated as insignificant through systemic oppression and mistreatment by our institutions of police and the courts, as well as municipal institutions which refused to make those responsible accountable; when that happened the response was what? A bland and colorblind response of "All Lives Matter" on the one hand, only serving to ignore and turn a blind eye toward the systems of racism continuing to operate in an official capacity in cities, counties, and states across this Union; and on the other hand a declaration of loyalty not toward the victims, but the oppressors, by declaring "Blue Lives Matter". Demonstrating not only a callous response to brutality and oppression of black lives by government institutions, but a deliberate choice to stand with those institutions when they are irresponsible, unjust, and violating the inalienable rights of human persons to live and have the opportunity to prosper.

Colorblindness is, and remains, the modus operandi of people who would rather ignore racial injustice and the systems and institutions which propagate it--because it makes them uncomfortable, because it makes them feel like perhaps they themselves have a moral obligation to reflect on their own privilege--than to become aware of the deep, deep flaws of the status quo, and that things must change. Not superficially, but fundamentally. It's insufficient to merely pluck the bad fruit from the tree, because if the tree itself is bad, then it simply cannot produce good fruit. If the root is bad, then what springs from the root is also bad--address the root, and if necessary, tear the root out and plant something new. And if by all means available, peaceably. But do not be at all shocked that when men and women are made to suffocate under the conditions of injustice that the gentle voice that says, "Please help" turns into a vocal cry of protest; and the hand desperate to reach out for aid, becomes a fist of self defense. Fix the problem before it comes to that, but if all is refused, do not be shocked--but hear the voice crying out, and be a human being.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hans Blaster]

OK so I guess he has learnt from that and wants a broad pectrum of views as well as expertise. The point is he is taking it seriously and preparing. Remembering that the team is the overseer and there will be 1,00s of appointments to key positions and the like.

What "diversity"? The announced team of chairs include a businessman, a business woman, a business bro, Peter Thiel's lackey, fail-son 1 and fail-son 2. You think those peoplee can organize the government of the US in less than 100 days? Seriously?

But I keep coming back to this idea of dismissing a potential team based on spectulations and the current approach taken by the Dems with the mess they have created by the total lack of planning and expertise involved. How can anyone on the Left take the speck out of Trumps eye when they have a massive log in their own.

What speculation? It is based entirely on the announced Trump transition team. If you want to know what VP Harris is doing on that effort (not that it matters here) you could look it up and see who is on her team. Even if it was, as you wildly claim, a "total lack of planning and expertise", she could actually get by with no planning if she just asked the current people to stay on for 1-6 months until their replacements were chosen and approved. (And some in the administration certainly will stay, or move up a notch.)

Most of who I mentioned were politicians, in Harris and Biden and the minders behind them. But its silly to say this is not about non politicians when it was the elite Left who actually have the power to sway things as to who gets to be the candidate. To be sure there is plenty of influence from non political circles.

We were talking about Trump's initial transition team leadership. NONE of them were politicians and only one had any experience in government. (Neither Harris, nor Biden are on Trump's team. I'm not sure why you mention them.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Not as a conservative Republican. He does hate Trump so I guess that does give him points with you.BTW nice dodge on the Kamala question. I understand why.

The question was experience and what doomed Christie was not his politics, but whom he prosecuted.

https://www.justice.gov/archive/tax/usaopress/2005/txdv05kush0304_r.htm

NEWARK - Real estate developer and political contributor Charles Kushner was sentenced today to 24 months in prison for his pleas of guilty to assisting in the filing of false tax returns, retaliating against a cooperating witness and making false statements to the Federal Election Commission, U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Christie announced.

This was a nasty case that included this little gem of depravity and corruption:

Kushner further admitted at his plea hearing that he devised a scheme to retaliate against a cooperating witness - his sister - and her husband by having a prostitute seduce the husband and covertly filming them having sex. Kushner admitted that he paid a private investigator $25,000 to arrange for the seduction and videotaping of the cooperating witness' husband. Kushner admitted to personally recruiting the prostitute and instructing that the videotape be mailed to the cooperating witness.

Christie was dumped entirely because the criminal's son, Jared, was married to the daughter of the President-elect and played a large role in the campaign (and subsequent government). No other reason, certainly not "ideology". If not fur Kushner, Christie would have likely held a large role in the Trump Administration, Sec. State, AG, Chief of Staff, etc. Instead he had to stay out of the limelight and his biggest role was running debate prep in 2020 where Trump infected him with COVID that nearly killed him.

As for me and Christie, I still wouldn't have voted for him. On the partisan things Trump did in concert with other Republicans, I doubt they would be much different under a "Pres. Christie". Still the big tax cut, still packing the courts with the Leo/McConnell judges (perhaps Christie would have balked at a few of the blatently unqualified choices or insisted on a few cronies, but no real difference). There would have been a boost in border security, but no silly wall obsession or blatent Muslim ban. The Obamacare repeal might have actually worked at least in part, and there probably would have been some sort of actual infrastructure bill. Unless what you want of a conservative politician is punishment of your enemies, Christie would have delivered more as president.

On the non-partisan things a "Pres. Christie" would have almost certainly not coddled foreign dictators, damaged international institutions, and would have had a better and less deadly response to COVID, combined with more competent administrators, a better response that would have likely also had less economic impact and gotten himself reelected in 2020.

Short version, no, I would not prefer Christie generally, but he certainly would have been a better and less damaging president than Trump and that has nothing to do with him not being a "conservative".

 

[stevevw]

What "diversity"? The announced team of chairs include a businessman, a business woman, a business bro, Peter Thiel's lackey, fail-son 1 and fail-son 2. You think those peoplee can organize the government of the US in less than 100 days? Seriously?

lol you swatted them aside like flies. Like I said there will be 16 people and Kennedy and Gabbard will be included. There were a few candidates mentioned in the article I can't remember. But mainly politicians. So it will be politicians, business people, independents, Dems, yeah some family. I guess thats keeping it in the family. Clinton did the same.

But lets wait until the full team is announced before chopping them down.

What speculation? It is based entirely on the announced Trump transition team.

The whole team has snot been announced yet. There are 16 positions. I have only mentioned 6. There is talk of former Trump team members or from the Bush administration. No one knows yet.

The point is they are vetting everyone and barring certain people who may disagree with Trump and the position of the party. That shows that the want everyone on the same page working together for the same aim which makes good sense.

If you want to know what VP Harris is doing on that effort (not that it matters here) you could look it up and see who is on her team.

Yeah but we don't even know what she really stands for let alone have a team to implement it.

Even if it was, as you wildly claim, a "total lack of planning and expertise", she could actually get by with no planning if she just asked the current people to stay on for 1-6 months until their replacements were chosen and approved. (And some in the administration certainly will stay, or move up a notch.)

The problem is thats the very administration she is wanting to disown and detached herself from. Shes been recreated as a candidate against her own party lol. She has reneged on all hers and Joes past positions and wants to make out she is moderate and someone new who can fix the mess she and Joe created.

We were talking about Trump's initial transition team leadership. NONE of them were politicians and only one had any experience in government. (Neither Harris, nor Biden are on Trump's team. I'm not sure why you mention them.)

Like I said I only mentioned a few of the team. More were mentioned as possible candidates and they were politicians obviously. So if the rest are politicians that then makes a couple family and a businessman. Completely different to how your trying to make it.

The other business people like Musk will play and administrative role and not actually involved in the transition. I think North Dakota governor Doug Burgum, U.S. senators Marco Rubio and Bill Hagerty,are candidates. As well as Vivek Ramaswamy. Thats all I know. But it looks like a pretty different and diverse team from different perspectives and experiences.

Not the usual business as usual which has failed. Too much groupthink and not enough outside views. Having X Dems, moderates and real world business knowhow as well as experienced politicians will break the old mold of party partisan politics and back room deals within parties and be more about whats best for the nation ahead.

 

[BPPLEE]

The question was experience and what doomed Christie was not his politics, but whom he prosecuted.

https://www.justice.gov/archive/tax/usaopress/2005/txdv05kush0304_r.htm

NEWARK - Real estate developer and political contributor Charles Kushner was sentenced today to 24 months in prison for his pleas of guilty to assisting in the filing of false tax returns, retaliating against a cooperating witness and making false statements to the Federal Election Commission, U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Christie announced.

This was a nasty case that included this little gem of depravity and corruption:

Kushner further admitted at his plea hearing that he devised a scheme to retaliate against a cooperating witness - his sister - and her husband by having a prostitute seduce the husband and covertly filming them having sex. Kushner admitted that he paid a private investigator $25,000 to arrange for the seduction and videotaping of the cooperating witness' husband. Kushner admitted to personally recruiting the prostitute and instructing that the videotape be mailed to the cooperating witness.

Christie was dumped entirely because the criminal's son, Jared, was married to the daughter of the President-elect and played a large role in the campaign (and subsequent government). No other reason, certainly not "ideology". If not fur Kushner, Christie would have likely held a large role in the Trump Administration, Sec. State, AG, Chief of Staff, etc. Instead he had to stay out of the limelight and his biggest role was running debate prep in 2020 where Trump infected him with COVID that nearly killed him.

As for me and Christie, I still wouldn't have voted for him. On the partisan things Trump did in concert with other Republicans, I doubt they would be much different under a "Pres. Christie". Still the big tax cut, still packing the courts with the Leo/McConnell judges (perhaps Christie would have balked at a few of the blatently unqualified choices or insisted on a few cronies, but no real difference). There would have been a boost in border security, but no silly wall obsession or blatent Muslim ban. The Obamacare repeal might have actually worked at least in part, and there probably would have been some sort of actual infrastructure bill. Unless what you want of a conservative politician is punishment of your enemies, Christie would have delivered more as president.

On the non-partisan things a "Pres. Christie" would have almost certainly not coddled foreign dictators, damaged international institutions, and would have had a better and less deadly response to COVID, combined with more competent administrators, a better response that would have likely also had less economic impact and gotten himself reelected in 2020.

Short version, no, I would not prefer Christie generally, but he certainly would have been a better and less damaging president than Trump and that has nothing to do with him not being a "conservative".

What sunk Christie was the Bridge-gate incident. He can never get past that, and closing the beaches then having someone snap a photo of him and his family on the beach

 

[Hans Blaster]

What sunk Christie was the Bridge-gate incident. He can never get past that, and closing the beaches then having someone snap a photo of him and his family on the beach

With the general populace in the primary, I agree.

With Trump's "boy genius of campaigning", what kept Chistie out of government was he prosecuted Daddy for his egregious crimes.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You keep trying to divert this thread about *TRUMP* (and his lack of religious principles) in to one about Harris or Biden. I'm not going to play that game, but since you insist on peddling nonsense, I will briefly address it here only one time.

Yeah but we don't even know what she really stands for let alone have a team to implement it.

Then you should pay attention. She has been articulating policy positions from the beginning of the year. The

The problem is thats the very administration she is wanting to disown and detached herself from.

She is not. There is a lot of nonsense in the media and on the internet (including this site) about her being in charge of everything, which is a completely wrong understanding of the limited powers of the VP (not just her). From the descriptions given, the President and VP treat her role as a "chief counselor" working together as he comes to his decisions. She has not backed away from these decisions even though she is not the one making them. I have seen many in the media give her the chance to deny Biden but, unlike Peter, she has not.

Shes been recreated as a candidate against her own party lol.

That is a laughable statement and it is not funny. Any attempt to recreate her as such is only in the minds and claims of her opponents and the RW media. She has the full backing of her party and it is obviously enthusiastic.

She has reneged on all hers and Joes past positions and wants to make out she is moderate and someone new who can fix the mess she and Joe created.

I don't even know where to begin with this claim. Do you even know what her positions are? I doubt it.

 

[Postvieww]

The question was experience and what doomed Christie was not his politics, but whom he prosecuted.

https://www.justice.gov/archive/tax/usaopress/2005/txdv05kush0304_r.htm

NEWARK - Real estate developer and political contributor Charles Kushner was sentenced today to 24 months in prison for his pleas of guilty to assisting in the filing of false tax returns, retaliating against a cooperating witness and making false statements to the Federal Election Commission, U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Christie announced.

This was a nasty case that included this little gem of depravity and corruption:

Kushner further admitted at his plea hearing that he devised a scheme to retaliate against a cooperating witness - his sister - and her husband by having a prostitute seduce the husband and covertly filming them having sex. Kushner admitted that he paid a private investigator $25,000 to arrange for the seduction and videotaping of the cooperating witness' husband. Kushner admitted to personally recruiting the prostitute and instructing that the videotape be mailed to the cooperating witness.

Christie was dumped entirely because the criminal's son, Jared, was married to the daughter of the President-elect and played a large role in the campaign (and subsequent government). No other reason, certainly not "ideology". If not fur Kushner, Christie would have likely held a large role in the Trump Administration, Sec. State, AG, Chief of Staff, etc. Instead he had to stay out of the limelight and his biggest role was running debate prep in 2020 where Trump infected him with COVID that nearly killed him.

As for me and Christie, I still wouldn't have voted for him. On the partisan things Trump did in concert with other Republicans, I doubt they would be much different under a "Pres. Christie". Still the big tax cut, still packing the courts with the Leo/McConnell judges (perhaps Christie would have balked at a few of the blatently unqualified choices or insisted on a few cronies, but no real difference). There would have been a boost in border security, but no silly wall obsession or blatent Muslim ban. The Obamacare repeal might have actually worked at least in part, and there probably would have been some sort of actual infrastructure bill. Unless what you want of a conservative politician is punishment of your enemies, Christie would have delivered more as president.

On the non-partisan things a "Pres. Christie" would have almost certainly not coddled foreign dictators, damaged international institutions, and would have had a better and less deadly response to COVID, combined with more competent administrators, a better response that would have likely also had less economic impact and gotten himself reelected in 2020.

Short version, no, I would not prefer Christie generally, but he certainly would have been a better and less damaging president than Trump and that has nothing to do with him not being a "conservative".

So much should’ve, could’ve, would’ve in this post not worth a comment other than you have no idea what Christie would have done.

 

[Hans Blaster]

lol you swatted them aside like flies.

Gnats.

Like I said there will be 16 people and Kennedy and Gabbard will be included.

Nightmare fuel. Both are a menace.

There were a few candidates mentioned in the article I can't remember. But mainly politicians. So it will be politicians, business people, independents, Dems, yeah some family. I guess thats keeping it in the family. Clinton did the same.

Candidates, not members yet.

But lets wait until the full team is announced before chopping them down.

The whole team has snot been announced yet.

When the snot is announced we can discuss their unsuitability on an appropriate thread. This is not that thread.

There are 16 positions. I have only mentioned 6. There is talk of former Trump team members or from the Bush administration. No one knows yet.

There is no limit on the size beyond the practical.

The point is they are vetting everyone and barring certain people who may disagree with Trump and the position of the party. That shows that the want everyone on the same page working together for the same aim which makes good sense.

Like I said I only mentioned a few of the team. More were mentioned as possible candidates and they were politicians obviously. So if the rest are politicians that then makes a couple family and a businessman. Completely different to how your trying to make it.

The other business people like Musk will play and administrative role and not actually involved in the transition. I think North Dakota governor Doug Burgum, U.S. senators Marco Rubio and Bill Hagerty,are candidates. As well as Vivek Ramaswamy. Thats all I know. But it looks like a pretty different and diverse team from different perspectives and experiences.

Candidates, not announced yet.

Not the usual business as usual which has failed. Too much groupthink and not enough outside views. Having X Dems, moderates and real world business knowhow as well as experienced politicians will break the old mold of party partisan politics and back room deals within parties and be more about whats best for the nation ahead.

I don't buy your claim that my country or its government has failed.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So much should’ve, could’ve, would’ve in this post not worth a comment other than you have no idea what Christie would have done.

With certainly, no, but he was an actual experienced politician unlike the novice president. I would suspect more success from him.