Does anyone think that Christie is going to survive after this past weekend? With the Left piling on in an unremarkable partisan way given all the scandal-mongering the Right has been promoting, the far Right-wing of the GOP is also eager to see Christie go down in flames in favor of a more extremist candidate. With this double pronged attack, I believe it is just a matter of time before the word "Christie" and the number "2016" are never spoken in the same sentence again. The fact that Christie attacked Wildstein for his high school persona some 35 years ago reeks of desperation on Christie's part. Christie is toast and probably going to jail or will be forced to resign at the very least.
I see Hillary is quoted as claiming Bill's affair with Monica Lewinsky was "a ministry to a troubled person". I guess that sounds better than "predator in the White House"?
I'm failing to see what Clinton has to do with Christie. Especially Hillary Clinton. Bridghazi is pretty much just Christie as far as I can tell. You ask a question in this forum and you get nonsense in return. Color me unsurprised.
Wouldn't have it any other way. The better to "shine a spotlight" on 'em, IMO. It may take time, but people will eventually see just how close we came to...something really really awful.
Oh, my bad, I was just taking your lead...I thought this was a thread about the 2016 presidential possibilities. Well, heck, while we're at it, what do you think about Hillary's comments that Bill was merely ministering to a troubled youth when he had his way with Monica in the Oval Office?
What exactly is "Bridghazi"? Never heard of it. Is that even a word? If so, then please tell us what you think this thread is about. Thank you.
Watergate was scandal that gave birth to all sorts of "-gates"....apparently Benghazi is an equally serious scandal begetting "-ghazis". Thanks for the validation, moron joe!
LOL. Then here are some to add to the list: 1. Solyndghazi 2. Obamacareghazi 3. Fast-n-furighazi 4. IRSghazi 5. Snowdenghazi 6. NSAghazi 7. Sestakghazi 8. Seblius/Hatchghazi 9. Holder/Perjurghazi ... and, of course, the scandal that will keep that pie-faced, fat ass, "I'm asleep at 3 am, don't bother me" Hillary from winning in 2016: 10. BENGHAZI
Oh, certainly. I've heard of the George Washington Bridge scandal, just never heard of "Bridghazi". You didn't make that up, did you? Oh, well of course you didn't. The OP did. But, you seem to know so much about it. So, let's see.... if this thread is, indeed, about the George Washington Bridge scandal then we can extrapolate that into how it will affect Christie's (presumed) 2016 candidacy for president. After all, the OP mentioned 2016 so it seems to me that it's certainly one of the topics of this conversation. That seems like a natural course of conversation, doesn't it? Therefore, if we're going to talk about a (presumed) 2016 candidate, it's only natural that Hillary Clinton would (and should) be discussed, also. Otherwise, this is going to be a very short thread. Here's what we have so far: The OP basically says, "Duhhhh.... I don't like Chris Christie and... duh... he doesn't stand a chance in 2016". Then we have other folks who decided to discuss the topic of 2016 and you jumped in like some sort of self-appointed moderator. Well, ma'am, if that's what puts the shine on your balls, then have it. You've been here a few days and you're already boring me.
Thread length matters not. The problem is derailment as a tactic. Go ahead if you can show how any potential democratic candidate's situation matters to CC's strife. Ever heard of fallacious arguments? Seems my low tolerance for those bores you
I usually won't engage these drive-by types until they've been here for a while...seen too many pop in for a few weeks then tuck tail & run when they realize folks here aren't swayed by their msbnc/dimocrap underground talking points.
What "derailment" are you talking about? The OP brought up the topic of 2016. Therefore, how is 2016 not a topic of this thread? Talking about Hillary's presumed 2016 run in this thread is just as pertinent as talking about Christie's presumed 2016 run. But, on another note, if you're expecting anyone to stay on topic in any of the threads in this forum then you've obviously been mis-directed by the forum fairy. Now, you can let the moderators do their job and keep these threads in line if they so desire (or not) or you can be a happy little pundit and go with the flow. But, believe me, no one is paying any attention to you when you tell them to keep on topic. No one.
Agreed. But, the only other unenlightened forum members are Little Joe and IQLessThan1 and I gave up on them a long time ago. I'm ready for some fresh meat (no pun intended).
Eh, you'll find someway to make a point, which will be promptly ignored, of course. That said, I still feel it's worth the effort, if only to show other like-minded people that they are not alone in wanting to bang their heads on some drywall, or down a few beers, or host a St. Bernard throwing contest...whatever.
Oh, you DO engage them if for no other reason than to drive them away. You and your Right-wing trio aren't interested in opposing views, you just want to hear your Right-wing echo chamber BS while circle jerking each other. I've never seen anyone kiss more ass than Coinous when he thinks another Right-wing troll might be passing through. Listening to opposing views isn't exactly your forte.
