Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

If he wasn't, he would have appointed a Democrat to fill Lautenberg's seat - since the voters of NJ elected a Democrat in the first place.

Instead, he appoints a Republican friend.

dbackjon wrote:If he wasn't, he would have appointed a Democrat to fill Lautenberg's seat - since the voters of NJ elected a Democrat in the first place.

Instead, he appoints a Republican friend.

Good for him! There is no guarantee the New Jersey voters would have voted for a Democrat...unless those voters were simply stupid, ignorant, robots that pulled the Democratic ticket regardless of the candidate, as dback so assuredly, and quite proudly, implies.

No, the New Jersey voters did not vote just for a Democrat...they voted for an individual. And that individual is DEAD. So Christie did the right thing and showed leadership in selecting the most qualified person for the temporary job.

Cripes, dabck would want Christie removed because he has an R next to his name. Simply put, Dback is a brain drained partisan hack who respects a party more than any individuals.

A correlation could be made that dback encourages and participates in the same thinking that he hates. Label a person and hate him as a Democrat/Republican or a gay instead of looking at the person as an individual.

Way to hate, dback! A rainbow of colors is out there...except you only see in black and white.


Troof!

Yeah, like a Donk governor would never do it.

Maybe the old dude shouldn't have died, and maybe NJ shoulda elected a Donk govenor.
Elections have consequences, right?

Two words, Rod Blagojevich.

but that was ok tho. - Dems

This thread might make dback go all OSBF on us for a couple days.

Strange that one of the biggest partisan hacks on the forum has issue with this...


If it was a dem appointing a dem to a rep held seat he wouldn't have any issue

Huh? A partisan hack? Like Cluck said, the previous voters voted for Lautenberg, that's the name on the ticket, not "generic Democratic Senator". Since Lautenberg is clearly dead, anyone Christie picked would have been different than whom the voters choose.

With that said, what is the big deal regarding this? Christie picked a person who will not enter the special election, so this is clearly a short term fill, and Christie has already picked the earliest possible date for a special election to fill this seat when he picked August for the primaries and October for the actual election.

If Christie was really a partisan hack, as dback claims (and I'll give dback credit, being one of the most strident partisan hacks on these boards himself he should have an idea what one looks like, despite missing the mark clearly here), then Christie would've appointed a Republican to fill the seat for the rest of Lautenberg's term (which wasn't up for re-election until November 2014) and he could've picked a person that would actually run in that election, thereby getting the added boost of being the perceived incumbent.

So instead, Christie picks the quickest option for voters to get to have their say, probably throwing the election to a Democrat to boot by doing so, and appoints a caretaker to sit in the seat for the next 3 months, which is summer time and we know the Senate, unlikely to do anything of note even when "busy", is likely to do absolutely nothing of note, and he gets pegged as a "partisan hack".

I can't think of a more faulty logic post than the one that started this thread.

dbackjon wrote:If he wasn't, he would have appointed a Democrat to fill Lautenberg's seat - since the voters of NJ elected a Democrat in the first place.

Instead, he appoints a Republican friend.

New Jersey voted a democratic candidate to that office. They didn't vote the seat to the Democratic Party.

If John McCain kicked the bucket, I would expect Bat-Shit Brewer to select a Republican to the seat until the next election.

In fact, many states have that law requiring it.


I am not surprised by this - just pointing it out to those Christie dick-suckers that claim he is somehow different.


And we are all a bunch of partisan hacks. Even those that claim to be above it all.

dbackjon wrote:If John McCain kicked the bucket, I would expect Bat-Shit Brewer to select a Republican to the seat until the next election.

In fact, many states have that law requiring it.


I am not surprised by this - just pointing it out to those Christie dick-suckers that claim he is somehow different.


And we are all a bunch of partisan hacks. Even those that claim to be above it all.

No, some of us aren't partisan hacks. Christie isn't the average white Republican and that is a breath of fresh air. He isn't perfect.

dbackjon wrote:If John McCain kicked the bucket, I would expect Bat-Shit Brewer to select a Republican to the seat until the next election.

In fact, many states have that law requiring it.


I am not surprised by this - just pointing it out to those Christie dick-suckers that claim he is somehow different.


And we are all a bunch of partisan hacks. Even those that claim to be above it all.

He may be buddies with Obama post-Sandy, but they have very different ways of governing IMO. Christie is certainly a different candidate than we've seen in recent years coming out of the right.

Ibanez wrote:

dbackjon wrote:If John McCain kicked the bucket, I would expect Bat-Shit Brewer to select a Republican to the seat until the next election.

In fact, many states have that law requiring it.


I am not surprised by this - just pointing it out to those Christie dick-suckers that claim he is somehow different.


And we are all a bunch of partisan hacks. Even those that claim to be above it all.

No, some of us aren't partisan hacks. Christie isn't the average white Republican and that is a breath of fresh air. He isn't perfect.

dbackjon wrote:

Ibanez wrote: No, some of us aren't partisan hacks. Christie isn't the average white Republican and that is a breath of fresh air. He isn't perfect.

I know it's difficult for you to understand Jon, but some of us aren't right wing or left wing apologists/ supporters. I support and abhor policies from both sides of the aisle. I look forward to the day when Statesmen and women return to Congress. I look forward to a day when compromise isn't a dirty word or associated with giving up on your principles.

GannonFan wrote:Huh? A partisan hack? Like Cluck said, the previous voters voted for Lautenberg, that's the name on the ticket, not "generic Democratic Senator". Since Lautenberg is clearly dead, anyone Christie picked would have been different than whom the voters choose.

With that said, what is the big deal regarding this? Christie picked a person who will not enter the special election, so this is clearly a short term fill, and Christie has already picked the earliest possible date for a special election to fill this seat when he picked August for the primaries and October for the actual election.

If Christie was really a partisan hack, as dback claims (and I'll give dback credit, being one of the most strident partisan hacks on these boards himself he should have an idea what one looks like, despite missing the mark clearly here), then Christie would've appointed a Republican to fill the seat for the rest of Lautenberg's term (which wasn't up for re-election until November 2014) and he could've picked a person that would actually run in that election, thereby getting the added boost of being the perceived incumbent.

So instead, Christie picks the quickest option for voters to get to have their say, probably throwing the election to a Democrat to boot by doing so, and appoints a caretaker to sit in the seat for the next 3 months, which is summer time and we know the Senate, unlikely to do anything of note even when "busy", is likely to do absolutely nothing of note, and he gets pegged as a "partisan hack".

I can't think of a more faulty logic post than the one that started this thread.

It is amazing. I wonder if D1Backjon's boy Obama thinks Christie is a partisan hack?

dbackjon wrote:If John McCain kicked the bucket, I would expect Bat-Shit Brewer to select a Republican to the seat until the next election.

In fact, many states have that law requiring it.


I am not surprised by this - just pointing it out to those Christie dick-suckers that claim he is somehow different.


And we are all a bunch of partisan hacks. Even those that claim to be above it all.

Jealously is very unbecoming.

Oooooohhh. It looks like the libs are a bit concerned about Christie running for POTUS, so they are starting now with the microscope.
Keep a close watch Donks. Eventually you too will realize that Christie is what this country needs in the top leadership position.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Huh? A partisan hack? Like Cluck said, the previous voters voted for Lautenberg, that's the name on the ticket, not "generic Democratic Senator". Since Lautenberg is clearly dead, anyone Christie picked would have been different than whom the voters choose.

With that said, what is the big deal regarding this? Christie picked a person who will not enter the special election, so this is clearly a short term fill, and Christie has already picked the earliest possible date for a special election to fill this seat when he picked August for the primaries and October for the actual election.

If Christie was really a partisan hack, as dback claims (and I'll give dback credit, being one of the most strident partisan hacks on these boards himself he should have an idea what one looks like, despite missing the mark clearly here), then Christie would've appointed a Republican to fill the seat for the rest of Lautenberg's term (which wasn't up for re-election until November 2014) and he could've picked a person that would actually run in that election, thereby getting the added boost of being the perceived incumbent.

So instead, Christie picks the quickest option for voters to get to have their say, probably throwing the election to a Democrat to boot by doing so, and appoints a caretaker to sit in the seat for the next 3 months, which is summer time and we know the Senate, unlikely to do anything of note even when "busy", is likely to do absolutely nothing of note, and he gets pegged as a "partisan hack".

I can't think of a more faulty logic post than the one that started this thread.

It is amazing. I wonder if D1Backjon's boy Obama thinks Christie is a partisan hack?

ASUMountaineer wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Huh? A partisan hack? Like Cluck said, the previous voters voted for Lautenberg, that's the name on the ticket, not "generic Democratic Senator". Since Lautenberg is clearly dead, anyone Christie picked would have been different than whom the voters choose.

With that said, what is the big deal regarding this? Christie picked a person who will not enter the special election, so this is clearly a short term fill, and Christie has already picked the earliest possible date for a special election to fill this seat when he picked August for the primaries and October for the actual election.

If Christie was really a partisan hack, as dback claims (and I'll give dback credit, being one of the most strident partisan hacks on these boards himself he should have an idea what one looks like, despite missing the mark clearly here), then Christie would've appointed a Republican to fill the seat for the rest of Lautenberg's term (which wasn't up for re-election until November 2014) and he could've picked a person that would actually run in that election, thereby getting the added boost of being the perceived incumbent.

So instead, Christie picks the quickest option for voters to get to have their say, probably throwing the election to a Democrat to boot by doing so, and appoints a caretaker to sit in the seat for the next 3 months, which is summer time and we know the Senate, unlikely to do anything of note even when "busy", is likely to do absolutely nothing of note, and he gets pegged as a "partisan hack".

I can't think of a more faulty logic post than the one that started this thread.

It is amazing. I wonder if D1Backjon's boy Obama thinks Christie is a partisan hack?

rASUistMountaineer = bigot fuckhead

D1B wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
It is amazing. I wonder if D1Backjon's boy Obama thinks Christie is a partisan hack?

rASUistMountaineer = bigot ****

ASUMountaineer wrote:

D1B wrote:
rASUistMountaineer = bigot ****

Ibanez wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

I know it's difficult for you to understand Jon, but some of us aren't right wing or left wing apologists/ supporters. I support and abhor policies from both sides of the aisle. I look forward to the day when Statesmen and women return to Congress. I look forward to a day when compromise isn't a dirty word or associated with giving up on your principles.

See bolded part above. This is what needs to happen and how a democracy works (when it works). It will not happen until we the people (including, but certainly not limited to politicians) stop demonizing those with opposing views, and look for common ground to forge workable compromise where possible.

Nixon and Obama are the worst two Presidents of modern time with regard to demonizing the opposition and ignoring the rule of law. We need to rise above that, think critically, see the merits/pitfalls of arguments on both sides and say no to negative political tactics that paint the other side as evil.

Before we anoint Christie as the second coming any further, I'd like to remind you chumps that its the system that is broken. I kinda like Christie but he'd rule from the corporatist center right just like Obama unless the system gets changed. If you don't understand that you are naive and most likely a partisan hack.

LeadBolt wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
I know it's difficult for you to understand Jon, but some of us aren't right wing or left wing apologists/ supporters. I support and abhor policies from both sides of the aisle. I look forward to the day when Statesmen and women return to Congress. I look forward to a day when compromise isn't a dirty word or associated with giving up on your principles.

See bolded part above. This is what needs to happen and how a democracy works (when it works). It will not happen until we the people (including, but certainly not limited to politicians) stop demonizing those with opposing views, and look for common ground to forge workable compromise where possible.

Nixon and Obama are the worst two Presidents of modern time with regard to demonizing the opposition and ignoring the rule of law. We need to rise above that, think critically, see the merits/pitfalls of arguments on both sides and say no to negative political tactics that paint the other side as evil.

You were asleep from 2001-2009?

dbackjon wrote:

LeadBolt wrote:
See bolded part above. This is what needs to happen and how a democracy works (when it works). It will not happen until we the people (including, but certainly not limited to politicians) stop demonizing those with opposing views, and look for common ground to forge workable compromise where possible.

Nixon and Obama are the worst two Presidents of modern time with regard to demonizing the opposition and ignoring the rule of law. We need to rise above that, think critically, see the merits/pitfalls of arguments on both sides and say no to negative political tactics that paint the other side as evil.

You were asleep from 2001-2009?

Absolutely not asleep, I just have a better sense of perspective than some others with more narrow agendas and more partisan tendencies.