Well, it's hard to see bias in what you think is right, isn't it? My main problem with the article is the conclusory nature of defining Christie as a liar-- in the headline and as a main focus of the piece--especially when the examples in total do not seem particularly egregious. And of course in American politics there is always this Nixonesque association when you call a politician a liar. When the media call a politician a liar they are attempting to define him/her as being ineligible for the office. The reality is a politician cannot be ready to tell the whole truth at all times, because otherwise they will alienate too many groups and they will not be elected. That's not to justify outright lying-- however, every successful politician has to be good at avoiding getting pinned down on things, trying to avoid saying something that will get people to vote against him that would otherwise vote for him. Inevitably, they will cross the line in doing that. So while it's fair to point out when a politician has apparently not been honest, I think you need a very strong case to define the politician with the character trait of dishonesty. The abuse of power allegations are more of a concern, I think.

fate

That reads a lot like opinion.

Is this evidence?

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/20 ... _king.html
The author didn't even mention the Sheldon Adelman contribution to the trip ...


Fate

That reads a lot like supposition.

Is this evidence?

Christie says he's responsible...

Gov. Chris Christie on Thursday fired the top aide who brazenly plotted the crippling lane closures on the George Washington Bridge – insisting he was “blindsided” by the scandal but admitting that ultimately “I’m responsible.”

Fate

Failing to increase the minimum wage affects how many adults in NJ?

Is this evidence

Close to half a million New Jersey workers and over 230,000 children.

http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files ... uary_0.pdf

Asking "Is this evidence" rhetorically, doesn't disqualify the proffered evidence.
There is a basis for the mans claims about Christie.
You may think its okay for Christie to accept a $30,000 vacation from the King of Jordan and free jet use from Sheldon Adeleson. Okay.
But why is it okay?
If it were Hillary Clinton you'd be all over her.

There's a reason Christie is unpopular in his own state. The people who know him best, those governed by him, have been disappointed in his performance as Governor.
I don't think he has a chance because of the net negatives that his own performance has produced.
Here's why:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/chri ... president/

A really even handed look at his positives and negatives can be found here: 9 reasons why he should run, and 9 reasons why he shouldn't. I think when you consider the 9 reasons why he should, those reasons are the ones where he's fallen short OR where they'll hurt him with Republican primary voters..

http://www.app.com/story/news/local/new ... /29475635/

freeman3 wrote:Well, it's hard to see bias in what you think is right, isn't it? My main problem with the article is the conclusory nature of defining Christie as a liar-- in the headline and as a main focus of the piece--especially when the examples in total do not seem particularly egregious. And of course in American politics there is always this Nixonesque association when you call a politician a liar. When the media call a politician a liar they are attempting to define him/her as being ineligible for the office. The reality is a politician cannot be ready to tell the whole truth at all times, because otherwise they will alienate too many groups and they will not be elected. That's not to justify outright lying-- however, every successful politician has to be good at avoiding getting pinned down on things, trying to avoid saying something that will get people to vote against him that would otherwise vote for him. Inevitably, they will cross the line in doing that. So while it's fair to point out when a politician has apparently not been honest, I think you need a very strong case to define the politician with the character trait of dishonesty. The abuse of power allegations are more of a concern, I think.

well put.

rickyp wrote:fate

That reads a lot like opinion.

Is this evidence?

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/20 ... _king.html
The author didn't even mention the Sheldon Adelman contribution to the trip ...

Which, again, does nothing to prove the allegation made in the column.

Fate

That reads a lot like supposition.

Is this evidence?

Christie says he's responsible...

Gov. Chris Christie on Thursday fired the top aide who brazenly plotted the crippling lane closures on the George Washington Bridge – insisting he was “blindsided” by the scandal but admitting that ultimately “I’m responsible.”

"Responsibility" in the sense that he's the governor. So what? Again, this is not "support."

Why can't you just be a reasonable person and admit the op-ed was not well-documented as you claimed?

As an example, Hillary took "responsibility" for Benghazi. Do you think it was her fault?

Based on the logic above (that Christie is at fault because he took responsibility), you would have to say "yes." Of course, you won't because you love to hold conflicting views and claim both are true.

Fate

Failing to increase the minimum wage affects how many adults in NJ?

Is this evidence

Close to half a million New Jersey workers and over 230,000 children.

http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files ... uary_0.pdf

Oh, because you're only reasonable compared to a jackass? Look, that flyer is not objective (it's an advocacy flyer), but that's only one problem.

The bigger problem is it does not answer my question: "Failing to increase the minimum wage affects how many adults in NJ?"

"Workers" is not "adults." Many of those who work minimum wage jobs are in high school or college. So, I guess a better way of phrasing it would be "are out of their parents' home and not in school?" Most of this "living wage" stuff is garbage. Anyone who expects to support a family from flipping burgers at McDonald's is delusional.

Asking "Is this evidence" rhetorically, doesn't disqualify the proffered evidence.
There is a basis for the mans claims about Christie.

Actually, yes it does disqualify the crap in that op-ed. There was precious little "evidence."

You may think its okay for Christie to accept a $30,000 vacation from the King of Jordan and free jet use from Sheldon Adeleson. Okay.

Adelson was not in the op-ed. Any documentation or reasons this was illegal or unethical was not in the op-ed.

Based on your understanding of "evidence," Hillary Clinton should be in jail.

There's a reason Christie is unpopular in his own state. The people who know him best, those governed by him, have been disappointed in his performance as Governor.

So what? What does that have to do with the op-ed?

I don't think he has a chance because of the net negatives that his own performance has produced.
Here's why:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/chri ... president/

I'm not arguing he does have a chance. he'd be way, way down on my list.

YOU cited the op-ed as being filled with evidence. I'm calling "bull." So, you start talking about how he doesn't have a chance, isn't popular . . . I don't care.

You also started bringing in "evidence" that was not in the op-ed. So, again, even you are noting it was not filled with evidence--or you wouldn't have to appeal to sources outside of the op-ed.

A really even handed look at his positives and negatives can be found here: 9 reasons why he should run, and 9 reasons why he shouldn't. I think when you consider the 9 reasons why he should, those reasons are the ones where he's fallen short OR where they'll hurt him with Republican primary voters..

http://www.app.com/story/news/local/new ... /29475635/

Not the point.

The point is the op-ed you linked was a smarmy little hit-piece.

freeman3 wrote:Well, it's hard to see bias in what you think is right, isn't it? My main problem with the article is the conclusory nature of defining Christie as a liar-- in the headline and as a main focus of the piece--especially when the examples in total do not seem particularly egregious.

rickyp, read the above three times and stop the madness! Please! freeman3 is spot on.

The abuse of power allegations are more of a concern, I think.

And, I would agree. The problem with the allegations is there is little to them. Democrats run the State. If they could not offer a deal to Christie's lieutenants that would get them to squeal, then maybe (probably) they had nothing to "squeal" with.

I think it's fair for voters to take Bridgegate into consideration, but I think the op-ed writer goes way too far. It reads like a personal and angry op-ed.

The Archduke and I had a discussion about when the South largely switched over to the Republican Party and I found a short article in my readings from the left that gives a good summation. I forgot what topic we were discussing, but this seems close enough.
http://logosjournal.com/2011/race-and-t ... iberalism/

freeman3 wrote:The Archduke and I had a discussion about when the South largely switched over to the Republican Party and I found a short article in my readings from the left that gives a good summation. I forgot what topic we were discussing, but this seems close enough.
http://logosjournal.com/2011/race-and-t ... iberalism/

I've always been struck by that Johnson quote: “I think we’ve just delivered the South to the Republican Party for the rest of my life, and yours.”

It seems so obvious now, of course, but maybe not so much then?

The "rest of" Johnson's life ended over 40 years ago, and the guy he supposedly said it to is now in his eighties. And the South seems to be solidly Republican for several generations to come..

Two members of the Bucks' ownership group donated $200,000 to the super PAC backing Walker’s presidential campaign, Bloomberg reported Tuesday

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) signed legislation Wednesday that commits hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money to a new arena for the NBA’s Milwaukee Bucks,

Now, here's the kind of quid qua pro that opponents of Hillary would love to unearth.

rickyp wrote:

Two members of the Bucks' ownership group donated $200,000 to the super PAC backing Walker’s presidential campaign, Bloomberg reported Tuesday

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) signed legislation Wednesday that commits hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money to a new arena for the NBA’s Milwaukee Bucks,

Now, here's the kind of quid qua pro that opponents of Hillary would love to unearth.

Really? There are all manner of similar arrangements with Hillary but you always claim they are not quid pro quo. Is there video of Walker taking money and then doing something he previously said he would not do?

Because no video = no proof. Isn't that your standard?

Oh, and footnote: donating to a Super Pac is not the same as donating to the candidate. Technically, they can't coordinate.

I know the conservatives here are unlikely to give him any attention other than to deride him, but Pataki may be the best of the field.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/20/nyregion/george-pataki-in-presidential-bid-fights-to-jog-voters-memories.html

The many years since he's been governor is hurting him, though.

geojanes wrote:I know the conservatives here are unlikely to give him any attention other than to deride him, but Pataki may be the best of the field.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/20/nyregion/george-pataki-in-presidential-bid-fights-to-jog-voters-memories.html

The many years since he's been governor is hurting him, though.

He doesn't bother me. I just don't think he can make himself relevant. He is slightly less interesting than Gov. Gilmore. In other words, he's as relevant to the process as Lincoln Chaffee is to the Democrats' process.

The one thing Trump has underscored is the gap between the establishment of the GOP (embodied by Jeb, Pataki, and several others) and the base. In other years, Trump would have gone nowhere. However, Boehner, McConnell, et al, have left the base feeling like the Libertarians are right: there is only one party. While they may disagree over the color of the curtains, they basically want the same kind of government: big.

Trump may not be a conservative. He may not even do what the base wants. However, right now, he is a thumb in the eye of those who have promised and promised, and done nothing.

geojanes wrote:I know the conservatives here are unlikely to give him any attention other than to deride him, but Pataki may be the best of the field.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/20/nyregion/george-pataki-in-presidential-bid-fights-to-jog-voters-memories.html

The many years since he's been governor is hurting him, though.

I agree with DF. Nothing there to bother or interest me.

Oh, the many highlights from yesterday, but Margaret Thatcher on the 10 dollar bill? Uh, how about an American, Jeb?

geojanes wrote:Oh, the many highlights from yesterday, but Margaret Thatcher on the 10 dollar bill? Uh, how about an American, Jeb?

We are tittering about it in the UK.

danivon wrote:

geojanes wrote:Oh, the many highlights from yesterday, but Margaret Thatcher on the 10 dollar bill? Uh, how about an American, Jeb?

We are tittering about it in the UK.

Would you all want to put Pres. Obama on one of your notes, in exchange?