trambone wrote:
part of it is finding a space that is worthwhile. So much of JC is very set up for residential.

user1111 wrote:
Are you overweight or traveling with large packages? I was just reading that some cabs charge extra... Cab rides: This is not just to cover additional fuel costs but also to pay for wearing out the suspensions (assuming that these actually exist in cabs);

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Pebble, we're not arguing whether someone really fat won't face ridicule and questions about if his/her health would be an issue in a race. Certainly, in Christie's case, the drive-by media would be sure to jump all over it.

But you're opposition to his politics has led you to, quite illogically, to both a) slam him for being fat and b) denigrate his attempts to improve his health, as well as c) demonize him for his appearance in a very non-PC way.

So, please, go on record-do you find all fat people disgusting, or only ones you want to demonize because you don't agree with their politics?

Because that's really revealing about your character, not Christie's.

No. That is your projection and assumption. I've made no statements about anyone other than Governor Chris Christie.

At least now you'll finally admit that Christie's appearance is a problem for him in the general election. Too bad you believe his weight issue is driven by "the media."

The Politico (a right wing blog): Weight issue lingers amid Christie-2016 buzz (11/17/2013)
TheWeek.com: Notable left wing loon, Mitt Romney, made fun of Chris Christie's weight

Vigilante wrote:
Funny. Bush was an alcoholic by his own admission and had DUI's. Obama smoked some weed, tried coke and still smokes. Ironically, Christie will probably die first from his food addiction.

bodhipooh wrote:
I positively despise JC cabs. They are usually in really bad condition, including terrible smell, and with the sole exception of one cabbie last week, they ALWAYS try to run off meter. I have had many an argument with cabbies about the meter (I always refuse to pay their inflated quotes and insist on the meter running). Surprisingly, came home late last week, walked out of the Grove Street PATH into a waiting cab, and the driver politely asked for my destination and immediately turned on the meter. My best experience yet. No hassle and professional. My assumption was that perhaps they are now starting to crack down on the cabs, but perhaps that is just wishful thinking.

CdeCoincy wrote:
Maybe I was the only one, but when I first read the subject, I assumed it was about his health or some family skeletons. I think anyone voting for him will have to assume that there is a more than likely (higher than the expected death rate for men his age) possibility that he will die in office. A lot may depend on his running mate. Ask John McCain about this.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Pebble, what about your overweight friends-do you call them disgusting? Would you mock them for taking pro-active steps to take care of their disease?

Do you have any 'disgusting' family members?

None of my friends or family is running for public office. It matters little to none.

Christie will run for president. His weight is a hindrance. He knows and you know it.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Another extremist, untrue statement.

If you don?t think the Republican Party has a problem with minorities, I?ve a tunnel to Manhattan that I?d like to sell you?

Quote:

Monroe wrote:
There are many on the looney left who say Republican money machine wants illegal aliens to provide cheap labor, of course.

I am not of the mind that this is a way to squeeze cheap labor. You?re need to pinhole me into your narrow world view is rather funny.

Quote:

Monroe wrote:
In any case, supporting the interests of American citizens over benefits for illegal aliens is patriotic and not hateful by anyone's standard, except for self hating Americans I would say.

Quote:

Monroe wrote:
As for his weight, he's gradually slimming down nicely and will be in fighting shape by the time the primaries arrive; being overweight is the norm in the US and could likely be a plus with the voting populace. Past drug use and a candidate smoking hasn't stopped previous POTUS candidates either. His struggles with his weight only makes him more human and identifiable with the voters.

You are fooling yourself if you think his weight isn?t an issue. He?s disgusting. I don?t know a single person that looks at him and thinks otherwise.

Prior drug use? smoking? in the television age, our presidents have all had a level of attractiveness. Christie looks like a guy that should be doing Arbie?s or White Castle commercials.

Mike Huckabee was the same way, only not nearly as fat. He would gain weight and then start trimming down towards the election cycle. It made for a great story. The difference is that Huckabee lost it by doing real work. Our governor did it the way lazy rich people do: surgery.

The man has money. I?d respect him more if he went on a real diet and got a personal trainer and there are many that feel this way.

Quote:

Monroe wrote:
(To support the above, you only have to look at the consensus he created in NJ with his appeal to women, minorities, Democrats, and independents last November-in an overwhelmingly Blue state).

As mentioned above? the guy ran unopposed with a massive war chest (not to mention using the state money to plaster his face in ads during an election year or spending additional money so that Booker wasn?t on the ballot).

Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
...you only have to look at the consensus he created in NJ with his appeal to women, minorities, Democrats, and independents last November-in an overwhelmingly Blue state.

He ran unopposed last November. Nothing to be gleaned from that.

But he ran against someone whose base mimics the landslide victory base of the 'progressive' looney left new mayor DiBlasio. The same principles of 'tax the rich even more', 'free' preschool and afterschool care, race bait and class divide, income redistribution hopes, and trying to create a feeling that income disparity needs to be corrected by governmental interference rather than free market uplifting.

But Christie's common sense and bi-partisan approach to governance trumped it all, across gender, race, party, and income level.

Now that?s some serious Kool-Aid drinking! DiBlasio won because he was largely unopposed. The same for Christie.

As for your need to add ?looney left? every time you talk about a Democrat? just shows how unlevel-headed you truly are.
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
To compare a second term Governor with a long list of bi-partisan accomplishments (in a Blue state) vs a one term Senator with nothing signature to stand on (except a history of flip flopping of philosophies that became apparent when he became POTUS) is at best silly, and at worst disingenuous.

Bi-partisan reform on healthcare funding. Check.
Bi-partisan reform on local tax increases. Check.
Bi-partisan reform on teacher tenure. Check.
Bi-partisan reform on treatment for non-violent drug offenders. Check.
Bi-partisan Dream Act. Check.
Sandy. Double check.
Best job growth in a decade. Check.
Beginning to put billions into state pensions after years and years of no contributions. Check, but can do better.
Beginning to reign in autonomous authorities like the Passaic Valley Sewer and the Delaware River Port. Check, but my biggest disappointment is (traffic cones issue not withstanding) his so far hands off attitude to the Port Authority, which he co-governs with Democrat Cuomo.

So, he's liked because he's a doer, not a talker. And he knows a deal where both sides hold their noses with one hand while signing it with the other is usually the one that benefits the taxpayers the most.

And you know what? If elected, Mrs. Clinton will do a much better job of that than the POTUS we have now. The 'signature' accomplishment, Obamacare, is the result of a totally partisan piece of legislation-and it's all on him and the Democrats, lock, stock, and 'you can keep your doctor and your healthplan' barrel.

You need to back up the ?best job growth in a decade.? Links.

Robbing from the public workers to put money back in the pensions after the state stole that money in the first place isn?t an accomplishment. It?s theft.

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
This Wall Street journal article and subsequent analysis perfectly explains how Obama and the gang have locked in national elections in perpetuity. Christie has a "fat chance" indeed, as would anyone not courting the lowest common denominator (those dependent on the government), which unfortunately is becoming the majority. I swear, Barry really IS the second coming of Jesus. Leading the poor and unwashed masses to the Promised Land.

Link to analysis

"What this really represents is the Obama Administration's determination to come up with any excuse, now matter how implausible, to avoid admitting its policies are responsible for the poor economy. This is partly, but not entirely, explained by the usual politician's impulse to deny he made a mistake. The bigger issue, though, is that the Obama Administration's economic policies have a broader political objective, which is to consolidate federal power in as many aspects of society as possible. That is what allows them to enlarge the permanent government-client class that will always vote Democrat because it depends on that government check to survive. Mitt Romney was right about the 47 percent, and the Obama Administration's goal is to make it a majority. That's how Democrats can stay in office forever."

Wow talk about crazyland!

Yeah, Democrats are looking to make people poor?

I?ll also point out that you don?t know the difference between an article and an op-ed.

Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Fail. By every account, he's been the most partisan POTUS in ages when it comes to not reaching out across the aisle. In fact, many Democrats find him insular and aloof to members of his own party who don't walk lockstep with him.

Prove it with a Link to actual evidence.

The more you post the more clown-like you get.

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Vigilante, which Republican voted for Obamacare, his 'signature' accomplishment that he squeaked by with a procedural motion, that now manages 1/6th of the US economy? Just how many Republicans were reached out to across the aisle? Did Obama make deals with them the way he did with unions, Mary Landrieu, and North Dakota to get that passed?

Oh, the Republicans were watching on CSpan. Oops, they couldn't, it wasn't televised as promised.

I think what you are trying to say is not "he won't negotiate" but instead "he won't do what WE want". The G.O.P. is run by clowns being menaced by midget patriots.

http://theweek.com/article/index/2507 ... otiating-with-republicans

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Monroe and Gravey, you guys are trying to convince the wrong people here. Christie's biggest problem is those in his own party. You talk about how he is the logical candidate but you now need to convince the illogical looney right-wingers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/nyr ... e-partys-savior.html?_r=0

With all due respect to Monroe's summary of Christie's accomplishments (and truth be told, if it weren't for his opposition to allowing gay people to marry I would have voted for him for Governor) the Times article says it all. The small % that is the Republican base absolutely has the party by the short hairs, and these people live in insular, older, white, "christian" communities, and are driven overwhelmingly by their fear of change, and will not see Christie's accomplishments. Remember, the Republican base put people like Bachman and Cruz into office! Does anyone REALLY think they are capable of of taking the leap for some like the governor of a densely populated, ethnically diverse, religiouosly pluralistic state like NJ?

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
...you only have to look at the consensus he created in NJ with his appeal to women, minorities, Democrats, and independents last November-in an overwhelmingly Blue state.

He ran unopposed last November. Nothing to be gleaned from that.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
lol, I'll play. My normal mocking tone would respond as 'the fear from the looney left is palpable, as their biggest nightmare is a moderate, bi-partisan consensus builder with national appeal and a guy next door attitude'.

My less mocking, but rooted in the ground response would be 'it'll be easy for him to defend this, because he made sure there is no provision for the illegal alien students to get free, state grant money to pay for the classes, keeping that money for citizen students' and this will be enough to satisfy the more conservative voters who understand they need to support someone electable.

Anyone see the Idaho polls?

I agree with this. This is the Republican way of recognizing that they have significant problems with minority support but also not alienating the base core of their support that hates foreigners that are supposedly stealing their jobs.

I don't think Christie wins or gets past the Republican Primaries. But this won't be a nail in that coffin.

I do believe that he'll be painted as too moderate during the primaries. His weight, which he's certainly aware of, is another factor.