Do the Words "Bully" & "Thug" Characterize Chris Christie?

I know these are favorite Right-winger words used to cast aspersions on the Left but really, do we have a better example of a politician being a thug than Chris Christie? I'd say that Christie is the poster child for these words as of this latest scandal and they haven't even begun to dig into his closet yet. Should be interesting.

You can change the subject now...

 

I'm a Dem but Gov. Christie has been given a bad shake.

I'd recommend kicking back and watching this because if you go against a good man like Gov. Christie and then find out you were wrong, apologies never undo what your mouth already put into motion.

Christie is smarter than you give him credit for and I realize that oversized peeps are normally stoopid as phuck, but there's an exception to every rule and Christie is the exception.

I say Christie is the Neo of Stoopid Fat, he's the One and only One, for there can be only One Stoopid Fat.

Ribbit

Ps: Drink sum Scotch Broom Tea and lose the fat, Chris.

 

So Christie had a problem with his staff. He dealt with it and got rid of the problem. But you find fault with him taking care of the problem. I guess that falls right in line with your mentor. Obama had many problems with his staff (Holder, Holder, Holder, Biden, Clinton, Biden, Holder, Geithner, Sebelius, Rice, Clinton, Holder, Biden, etc.) When Obama dealt with his problems, he left them in tack - to repeatedly cause more problems. Apparently you do not think anyone should be fire because that make the firer a "Bully" & "Thug". On the other hand, how is keeping all the problems around to repeat their mistakes working for Obama. Maybe you dislike firing problems, but I think it is the only way to really fix the problems.

 

I think you mistake the Right-wing wish list of scandals for actual scandals while you try to change the subject away from Christie.
Christie has always been a bully, always been corrupt, and always been shady even before he decided to use a national guard helicopter to attend his kids sports event. He is about as Nixonian as they come. We have the following:

Chris Christie didn’t become governor of New Jersey the easy way. He first had to overcome a gauntlet of scandals in which he was accused of crony capitalism, big spending, and using his government title to get himself out of legal trouble.​

And that’s just the lede. Some of the details (my emphasis and paragraphing):

One of the most persistent stories that dogged Christie in his 2009 campaign was his unusual financial relationship with a top aide at his federal prosecutor office, Michele Brown. Christie lent Brown some $46,000, which he says was to help a family friend through a rough patch.
But critics argued that the move was an improper conflict of interest heading into a gubernatorial campaign since Brown was in a position to help Christie in a variety of ways. Her job included handling FOIA requests, including those from Governor Corzine’s campaign, for example.
And in one instance, she argued to colleagues in favor of wrapping up a major corruption probe before July 1, when Christie’s successor took over the US Attorney position, a move that ensured credit for the case would clearly flow to Christie. Brown resigned shortly after news of the loan broke and, according to the New York Times, she paid off Christie’s loan in October 2010.
It wasn’t the only allegation of conflict of interest that Christie fought off. The then-US Attorney testified before Congress on a series of no-bid monitoring contracts worth millions that he awarded to various law firms. One contract, worth up to $52 million, went to former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Christie’s old mentor. Another former US Attorney chosen for a monitoring contract, David Kelley, had previously investigated Christie’s brother in a stock fraud case in 2005 — he was not indicted while fifteen others were.

​

 

More interesting retaliation from Christie...

The Rachel Maddow Show


Christie apologizes, says ‘mistakes were made’

01/09/14 01:11 PM—Updated 01/09/14 01:34 PM
facebook twitter 1 save share group 49
By Steve Benen
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) addressed his bridge scandal for the first time publicly since yesterday’s revelations and announced changes to his team.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie apologized to his state’s residents Thursday and announced that he had fired a top aide after emails surfaced indicating staffers planned to cause a traffic jam on the country’s busiest bridge as part of a political payback scheme to punish a local mayor.

“I am embarrassed and humiliated by the conduct of some of the people on my team,” Christie said at a press conference in Trenton, N.J. The Republican governor, clearly trying to get in front of a growing controversy, insisted he knew nothing about the scheme and that he was “blindsided.”​

Specifically, deputy chief of staff Bridget Anne Kelly has been ousted, effective immediately, and Bill Stepien, Christie’s campaign manager, will no longer work with the governor at the Republican Governors Association and has dropped his bid for state party chairman.

The press conference, lasting nearly two hours, covered a fair amount of ground, much of which included Christie apologizing and emphasizing how “sad” he is. Indeed, one of the more notable things about the governor’s presentation was his willingness to present himself as the victim in his administration’s scandal – he was lied to by those inside his “circle of trust,” leaving him “betrayed.”

As for who ultimately made the decision to cripple Fort Lee, the governor replied, “I don’t know.” He also didn’t rule out the possibility that political retribution from his administration went beyond this controversy.

Christie also continued to suggest there may have been a legitimate “traffic study,” which seems unfathomable given the available evidence, including the fact that his former deputy chief of staff specifically said, “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee.”

But perhaps the most striking claims today dealt with the culture of Christie’s administration. The governor insisted how unusual the misconduct was because, he said, it’s not the way his team “conducts itself” and it’s inconsistent with the “tone that we’ve set here.” The governor argued he’s “not a bully.”

The problem, of course, is all of the evidence to the contrary. Christie has earned a reputation as a bully for good reason. Indeed, Kate Zernike reported recently that Christie’s track record of bullying New Jersey officials for even minor slights is extraordinary.

In 2010, John F. McKeon, a New Jersey assemblyman, made what he thought was a mild comment on a radio program: Some of the public employees that Gov. Chris Christie was then vilifying had been some of the governor’s biggest supporters.

He was surprised to receive a handwritten note from Mr. Christie, telling him that he had heard the comments, and that he didn’t like them.

“I thought it was a joke,” Mr. McKeon recalled. “What governor would take the time to write a personal note over a relatively innocuous comment?”

But the gesture would come to seem genteel compared with the fate suffered by others in disagreements with Mr. Christie: a former governor who was stripped of police security at public events; a Rutgers professor who lost state financing for cherished programs; a state senator whose candidate for a judgeship suddenly stalled; another senator who was disinvited from an event with the governor in his own district.​

The whole article is worth reading to appreciate just how thin-skinned the governor really is. The piece points to example after example of Christie using the power of his office to punish rivals – even other Republicans – who’ve offended him in minor and inconsequential ways.

The governor obviously doesn’t want to be blamed for the Fort Lee fiasco, but looking back over the last four years, the available evidence paints a deeply unflattering portrait of an intemperate bully, willing to use the power of his administration to intimidate, punish, and harass.

 

You say that as if you gave Gov. Christie an insult?

Ole Tricky Dick was one of our greatest Presidents and Spiro was key for why Richard balanced the budget. Had Spiro not be railroaded out and then Richard following, we wouldn't be having many of the problems we are having today, especially with Welfare, since LBJ screwed that all up and Richard & Spiro were well on the way to fixing LBJ's phuck-ups with Welfare but heaven forbid should anyone fix this.

That would screw everything up if sumone were to fix this!

Ribbit

 

LBJ's war on poverty was crippled by Nixon and the war in Vietnam. MLK made this same point in 1967. Even this severely truncated effort, government initiated relief programs were able to reduce the poverty rate by 43% until Ronnie Reagan stepped in and created the war on the war on poverty.

 

Let's kNot bring Uncle Ronnie into this. I'd hate to have to agree with you on something.

LBJ's war on poverty created a system the poor could not escape from, and history proves that. Richard & Spiro would have corrected that oversight.

Ribbit

 

Poverty is a system unto itself. It feeds on itself and grows if the root causes are not addressed. You cannot simply hand people money and not address the root causes of the problem I'd agree 100%. The single most valuable weapon in the war on poverty is education. Poverty isn't a choice as the Right-wingers feel it is much in the same way that one's gender preference isn't a choice. Poverty has well-studied contributing factors but the cure is just as well known. As we move away from the publicly subsidized education model, poverty increases. There is a direct correlation with the reduced education funding track this country is on and the rise of poverty that tracks outside of the factors such as the recent economic recession. Poverty is almost completely a self-inflicted wound we are choosing to inflict on ourselves.

 

The greatest way to create disparity is to put a price-tag on Education and Newton's 3rd Law of Motion then dictates that when a Privileged Class is created, a Poor Class always follows.

Thus, from that, it is without a doubt that the Educational System of the United States is absolutely Unconstitutional, given the government is forbidden from creating a Privileged Class, yet they have. Didn't you catch the Hunger Games Case?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=11-345

"The Texas State Legislature also responded to the Hop-wood decision. It enacted a measure known as the Top Ten Percent Law, codified at Tex. Educ. Code Ann. §51.803 (West 2009). Also referred to as H. B. 588, the Top Ten Percent Law grants automatic admission to any public state college, including the University, to all students in the top 10% of their class at high schools in Texas that comply with certain standards."

Dew you see what's going on in Texas? The Legislature of Texas only allows the top 10% of the State's Citizens to attend State Colleges, creating a Privileged Class in Texas, known as the Top 10 Percent Class.

The person in that lawsuit, they were in the Top 12%, so they didn't make the cut, they were kept out of that State Government Owned & Controlled Skewl of the Privileged Class.

Ribbit

 

View attachment 2210