Does Anybody Else Love Chris Christie

#3
#3
Not a fan of the guy's personality or his political views, but there is a lot of support for him on this forum.
 
#4
#4
He's plump. The leftards tried to make that an issue in the Governors race, believe it or not.

I'm definitely a fan.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#5
#5
I'm a Paul Ryan fan. . .he's way to honest about our financial future to ever get elected.
 
#7
#7
JTrainDavis said:
He's plump. The leftards tried to make that an issue in the Governors race, believe it or not.

I'm definitely a fan.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I personally agree that making his weight an issue is silly but apparently americans care about it. What's it been like 100 years since we've had an obese president? Same goes for facial hair for whatever reason.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#8
#8
Most of this forum wants to at least have a beer with him, and a few want to find a way to heterosexually have gay sex with him.
 
#9
#9
Voodoomonkey said:
I personally agree that making his weight an issue is silly but apparently americans care about it. What's it been like 100 years since we've had an obese president? Same goes for facial hair for whatever reason.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Or a president that smokes. . .uh, strike that. . .
 
#10
#10
Voodoomonkey said:
I personally agree that making his weight an issue is silly but apparently americans care about it. What's it been like 100 years since we've had an obese president? Same goes for facial hair for whatever reason.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
Bill Clinton got pretty regularly ridiculed for eating like crap and being a little plump, but you're probably right. There hasn't been a fat President since Taft.
 
#11
#11
I'd take Christie over Paul in a heartbeat. Paul is too rigid. Christie seems to be a do what's got to be done guy rather then we are going to do it whether it's needed or not.
 
#12
#12
GAVol said:
Bill Clinton got pretty regularly ridiculed for eating like crap and being a little plump, but you're probably right. There hasn't been a fat President since Taft.
Click to expand...

We need to go back to where fat meant power, wealth, and success. Skinny people should just serve to work the fields and make barrels and such.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#14
#14
He should run, in fact we should get all the brutally honest guys to run, how refreshing would that be? Instead of some of the spin doctors that we'll end up with as candidates only because the big money backed them.

I really wish they'd set term limits on politicians, maybe then we could get some of these career crooks out of office.
 
#15
#15
Cartervol said:
we should get all the brutally honest guys to run, how refreshing would that be?
Click to expand...

As long as electoral college votes are won by the popular vote, this will never happen.

Changes that must occur, if one wants an Executive that is worth a damn:

1. Increase the membership in the House of Representatives.
- The population of the US has expanded substantially since 1911; the membership of the House has not expanded at all. One Congressman per 30,000 citizens, the most allowed by the Constitution, should be the aim if the US truly wants to be a Representative Republic.
- Greater Federal Representation also leads to greater access to those Representatives for their constituents. It should not be difficult for an informed and interested voter to have an actual conversation with his/her Rep. As it stands right now, it is nearly impossible.

2. Return Senators to their Constitutional role.
- Senators were originally supposed to be Ambassadors from the State governments. They were appointed by state legislative assemblies; they were not voted in by popular vote.

3. Get rid of the popular vote for POTUS.
- "All politics is local". Getting rid of the popular vote for POTUS forces voters to take interest in local campaigns and local issues (the level where they can, presumably and ideally, converse with their Representatives).
- The "Electoral College" was originally a bloc consisting of the Senators and the Congressman from the states; these persons, presumably, are in the know as to how the government actually works and what role the Executive actually plays. Pandering is much tougher to do to a group of persons who have intimate knowledge of what promises can and cannot reasonably be followed through on.

Until these changes are made, we are stuck with a bunch of prancing monkeys leading our country.
 
#16
#16
therealUT said:
As long as electoral college votes are won by the popular vote, this will never happen.

Changes that must occur, if one wants an Executive that is worth a damn:

1. Increase the membership in the House of Representatives.
- The population of the US has expanded substantially since 1911; the membership of the House has not expanded at all. One Congressman per 30,000 citizens, the most allowed by the Constitution, should be the aim if the US truly wants to be a Representative Republic.
- Greater Federal Representation also leads to greater access to those Representatives for their constituents. It should not be difficult for an informed and interested voter to have an actual conversation with his/her Rep. As it stands right now, it is nearly impossible.

2. Return Senators to their Constitutional role.
- Senators were originally supposed to be Ambassadors from the State governments. They were appointed by state legislative assemblies; they were not voted in by popular vote.

3. Get rid of the popular vote for POTUS.
- "All politics is local". Getting rid of the popular vote for POTUS forces voters to take interest in local campaigns and local issues (the level where they can, presumably and ideally, converse with their Representatives).
- The "Electoral College" was originally a bloc consisting of the Senators and the Congressman from the states; these persons, presumably, are in the know as to how the government actually works and what role the Executive actually plays. Pandering is much tougher to do to a group of persons who have intimate knowledge of what promises can and cannot reasonably be followed through on.

Until these changes are made, we are stuck with a bunch of prancing monkeys leading our country.
Click to expand...
All good points. I'm afraid it might be too far gone for that now. Maybe just set term limits for now would be a good start.

You're right about not being able to talk to your congressman. If you do try to contact him you usually get a typed letter from his secretary, rather than being able to talk directly to him like you should be able too. I understand that they're busy, but it seems most are just out of touch with the people they represent.

The public is at fault here also as most of them probably couldn't even tell you who represents their district anyway. They live in bubbles and only get involved when it directly affects their own personal lives.
 
#17
#17
I really like Christie also although it seems he isn't running. I also like Ryan from wisconsin & Perry from Texas & Rand Paul from KY, i wish any of those would throw their hat in the ring for POTUS.
 
#19
#19
MUR73 said:
I really like Christie also although it seems he isn't running. I also like Ryan from wisconsin & Perry from Texas & Rand Paul from KY, i wish any of those would throw their hat in the ring for POTUS.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the good chuckle.
 
#20
#20
MUR73 said:
I also like Ryan from wisconsin & Perry from Texas & Rand Paul from KY, i wish any of those would throw their hat in the ring for POTUS.
Click to expand...

It'd be easier to get Mitch Daniels elected than any of those guys (and, in terms of running for POTUS, he is unelectable).
 
#22
#22
therealUT said:
It'd be easier to get Mitch Daniels elected than any of those guys (and, in terms of running for POTUS, he is unelectable).
Click to expand...

I am afraid you are probably right. The masses feed on the tit of the government and i think these men would propose a self reliance, limited governement and end to unneccesary entitlements. Entitlements are so entrenched into our society to even mention altering those systems is political suicide in many eyes.
Remember SSI started out as a voluntary act under FDR in 1935. What if a person took that same money they pay out ,unvoluntarily now by the way, in every paycheck, and instead put it in a longterm IRA which yielded 8-10% annual interest, which looking over the last 50 years isn't a stretch, how much more money would they have on average. But see SSI is soo ingrained in our culture now, few would even do the math and consider any alternative.
 
Last edited:
#23
#23
MUR73 said:
I wasn't kidding. Being responsible with money is a good thing my liberal friend and just check out all the new industry Texas has brought in from Lib states such as Cali, Washington State, etc.because Texas policy is business friendly which creates jobs. That is funny how?
Office of the Governor - Rick Perry
Click to expand...

Texas has one of the highest Debt to GDP ratios in the nation, complemented by a real growth rate that is materially as low as California's (2.9 and 2.7%, respectively).
 
#24
#24
MUR73 said:
What if a person took that same money they pay out ,unvoluntarily now by the way, in every paycheck, and instead put it in a longterm IRA which yielded 8-10% annual interest, which looking over the last 50 years isn't a stretch, how much more money would they have on average. But see SSI is soo ingrained in our culture now, few would even do the math and consider any alternative.
Click to expand...

I would pin the rate of return at between 4 and 6%; however, the point remains valid.
 
#25
#25
they also saved the surplus from a couple of years ago. there is a reason why texas' credit rating is far higher than california or illinois.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top