Is he too fat to run the nation? No. Is he too fat to get elected? :yes: Image counts, we like our Presidents tall, thin, and distinguished, not Bobby Baccalieri look-alikes.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Printable View
Is he too fat to run the nation? No. Is he too fat to get elected? :yes: Image counts, we like our Presidents tall, thin, and distinguished, not Bobby Baccalieri look-alikes.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
He wasn't too fat to become a governor of NJ. If he's good at what he does (and he is), people will overlook his flaw. Everyone is allowed to have one flaw. Obama is a commie, Romney is a liar, McCain is old, Clinton was(is?) a womanizer, Bush 43 was an idiot. The list can go on and on. If anything, Christie's weight doesn't look so bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Also, Christie would just reinforce the "all Americans are fat" stereotype.
Who cares?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Not sure, but if the answer is "a few thousand mugwumps in Ohio and Florida" then Christie comes up a cropper in a general election. Both states are important in the college and both are often decided by fewer than 50k worth of votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Obama is NOT a commie. He is a left-wing, big government, democratic semi-socialist. In Europe, his politics would probably be viewed as no more than mildly left of center and, I suspect, there would be more than a few who'd label him a tad on the conservative side by European standards. A communist? Not hardly.
Florida in 2k was decided by a very small margin, Gelcube, but subsequent recounts done by media outlets confirmed that the votes were slightly in Bush's favor. On the other hand, if even 25% of the fruit-bat left who voted for the Greens (Nader) in that election had held their noses long enough to pull a lever for Al "the internal combustion engine is evil" Gore, then Gore would have been President and W would have returned to baseball.
Exactly, if. Speculation can run wild, but to dismiss Christie solely because of his weight is silly imho.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Granted. On the other hand, sizism is one of the "acceptable" bigotries -- more so even then religion bashing -- so it may well be that it would harm Christie's chances.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
It's certainly a disadvantage, but a surmountable one. He's a political heavyweight either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
All I know is I want to see the next American President travelling around the world meeting national leaders on a mobility scooter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr
Maybe they could get the Popemobile on the cheap seeing as Benny isnt using it much
Well they would have to paint it red white and blue, always wanted to do that myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
But srsly I now have this image in my thread of Honey Boo Boo becoming the First Lady...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr
goes and googles this boo boo person and cops that we must be living in the last days of the roman empire
Somehow I'm reminded of the Baron Harkonnen from Lynch' Dune movie...Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
The spice must flow
Just because a fat guy got elected by New Jersey is no proof he is electable anywhere else but in states full of dysfunctional beach people.
I mean, did I just seriously read the arguments that if a guy can run, or get elected in, New Jersey, that he can run a nation?
This country will not elect an obese president ever again. We are too shallow in terms of image, and the government, whether dems or repubs run, is too much of a big nanny big brother, and we will be damned if a guy whose naval is deeped than his index finger is going to tell us we cannot smoke, drink, get high or buy hookers. Not going to happen. EVER.
People watching scantily clad girls vandalize property and cause civil disturbances while the government is trying to find ways to prevent people from forced to work until they are in their 100s while maintaining a high standard of living. Same as usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Why does a man have to apologize for another mans actions (who by the way not everyone reviles as much as you). I think you have the issue if you think that's a necessity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
...That's real?Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Oh, dear god, I thought that was just something south park came up with.
Oh god.
I need to lie down.
One of those girls is really cute. They should let her go.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Don't they have a saying in Russia about this? Something along the lines of people pretending to work and the government pretending to pay them.Quote:
while the government is trying to find ways to prevent people from forced to work until they are in their 100s while maintaining a high standard of living. Same as usual.
But that also isn't true. Large numbers of the Democrats voted for the wars as well. And don't say the CIA with the WMD thing. Try to remember post 911 patriotism; everybody was running around screaming hooah like they were in black hawk down. The Wars were a group effort and the democrats have had time to get out if they wanted. Plenty of the republicans would probably kick and scream if we withdrew but others would probably just be glad to get out of there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I think your assessment is correct for the Afghanistan war, but I believe the post 9/11 patriotism had subsided by 2003 when the Bush Administration pushed false info to get enough support to invade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
There is a difference between knowingly peddling false information so as to deceive and succumbing yourself to bad information through poor analysis. The former cannot be proven, though the latter demonstrably has been.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I wish it had been articulated from day one what the goals were/are in the WoT. It is pretty clear but has never been acknowledged. Should have been stated as part of a proposed DofW and then either done to the hilt or not.
In general, yes. I believe that there is a place for quick executive response in an emergency -- even the War Powers act which attempted to curtail Presidential deployment by fiat acknowledges this -- but longer or more substantial deployments of ANY kind should require the "advice and consent" and any effort at true war-making should be done under a specific declaration of war (or at least a formal approval for the use of armed force) SPECIFICALLY DELINEATED by Congress. The legislative "dipsy-doo" that essentially gave Bush a blank check to attack and fight by fiat without additional oversight was grossly negligent by Congress. I know it wasn't impeachable on their parts, but it felt cheap and irresponsible. I am still annoyed by their willingness to simply hand that most critical of powers reserved to the legislative branch over to the executive simply so that they could avoid the political responsibility of authorizing conflict. If it is important enough to kill people, then have the gonads to vote on it and make your support known. Jeanette Rankin had more frimping courage than the whole lot of them combined.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube