As noted during the primaries, Christie - and almost every other Republican candidate - was on the issues more extreme than Trump. Not more moderate. He also had mob ties, a record of vindictive misgovernance, and corruption issues. So how, exactly, would he have been a "better" candidate? I mean, I agree, but get it clear: Trump is a standard post-Reagan Republican Presidential candidate in every respect except vulgarity of expression. (Clinton is a standard pre-Reagan Republican candidate, in every respect except gender). Standard Republican management, for many campaigns now: http://www.bendbugle.com/2004/10/demos-decry-bush-rally-ouster-over-t-shirts/
Beyond the obvious competence issues? He supported gay marriage, opposed public prayer, wanted to expand Obamacare and green energy, and thought illegal aliens should have a way to get citizenship. Which is far better than (say) Cruz or Perry.
But not "far better" than Trump. His only position "less extreme" than Trump's was on treatment of illegal aliens. And btw: he did not support expanding Obamacare, he did not "oppose public prayer", and his take on those other issues was what the spin docs call "nuanced". http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Chris_Christie_Health_Care.htm. Meanwhile, the "competence" business is debatable. As with so many Boss style governors, Christie did not actually make the trains - or other traffic - run on time. Quite otherwise. And his capitulation to Trump was politically lame, at the time and since.
From Forbes: "Many Republicans have never forgiven New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for his effusive praise for President Obama days before the 2012 presidential election. Obama’s leadership, said Christie, had been “outstanding” after Hurricane Sandy. But a less-remarked-upon decision by Gov. Christie—to embrace Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid—is of much greater policy significance." If you are going to argue that Trump is more competent than a seven-year governor of New Jersey, knock yourself out.
If you are actually confused about the difference between accepting some benefits of Obamacare despite public opposition to it, and supporting the expansion of Obamacare, you are going to have half the Republican Congress supporting the expansion of Obamacare - while voting to repeal it, attempting to filibuster it, trying to defund it, and so forth. Capitulating to the likes of Trump in the fashion Christie did raises serious questions of political judgment and competency, which delving into his various aberrant behaviors and shady connections does not answer positively. But setting that aside; I'm going to argue that Trump is not at all "extreme" on the issues, and is in general more "moderate" than Christie as well as the rest of the Republican pack. Trump is an aberration only in style. He's vulgar. Other than that, he's a moderate, mainstream or slightly left Republican Party politician - pretty much what the country has been dealing with in the way of Republicans for thirty years now, only possibly a bit brighter than average. And Putin would of course help him, if possible - there's no downside for Putin in chaos amid NATO, or dealing with a naive bully rather than a policy wonk who will read the fine print in the treaties.
Not too confused, no. Christie supported the Obamacare expansion in his state because he did, in fact, implement such an expansion in his state. It's akin to someone who supports greater use of electric vehicles in his town by buying 200 of them for his business, rather than just saying everyone else should buy them. I'd say calling for a ban on immigration on a specific religion is extreme, as is building a 2000+ mile wall to keep out immigrants. He, of course, has several other positions that are not as extreme.
That wasn't an expansion. It was built into the original plan. It was a benefit, that a State could either sign on to or reject at it's own expense. Christie was like a lot of Republicans in that he took advantage of the deal (and credit for its benefits) while opposing it. I posted the link to Christie's official position on health care. He was opposed to Obamacare, and did not favor expanding - or even continuing - the program. It's billed as a moratorium, not a ban, and as such is broadly supported among mainstream Republicans; and an actual physical wall is as close as Trump gets to an extreme position - and it's a policy means, not a policy end: the policy itself - deporting all illegal immigrants, preventing further influx of them - is boilerplate Republican policy. Trump just says it in blunt language. Or as I put it above, speaking of Christie: Trump is not an extreme Republican, on the issues.
Opposing the immigration, based on a certain religion and/or ethnic groups is not new. The Democrat President, Jimmie Carter, during the Iranian hostage crisis of the late 1970's, restricted the immigration of Iranians to the USA, and deported all Iranians in the US on Visas. I am not sure why the liberal media does not remember this, since many of the same people were all for this at the time. It could be the onset of Alzheimers. Also the US stopped all immigration to the US from 1924 to 1965. There reason was there was a fear that were already too many immigrants and lack of assimilation could cause the US to lose its identity. The US identity, was that of a first world leader country. This could be lost, if you have too much second and third world cultural pockets, watering down the first world. You don't need more third world slums ,but rather you need more middle class developments. The 40 year pause gave time for a few generations to assimilate. Again, I would assume the media would know this, and not act like this is unprecedented. Their senility is teaching the liberal masses misinformation. Maybe they all know this is lying, but maybe lying is a key part of their strategy to deceive everyone. B.T Barnum and B.T. Trump. The other day I was thinking about why Trump has not getting his message out, and/or taking it to Hillary. Rather why does Trump keeping stepping into crap? The answer seems to be connected to the term; media circus. B.T. Barnum, was founded the Barnum and Bailey circus. He once said, "there is no such thing as bad publicity". What that means is even if you are selling the greatest show on earth, and someone gets hurt, and the press uses this to undermine you, even this bad publicity will attract certain types of people; rubberneckers, who will come to see someone else get hurt. Trump was the ring master, for the media cirrus, with the rubbernecker media and masses coming to see Trump fall of the trapeze. Many people go to auto racing to see accidents, not racing. Hillary spend over a $100 Million in donor money ragging on Trump. While B.T Trump spend almost nothing, yet he got all the rubberneckers to show up to the media circus with no advertising dollars. Now Trump is catering to the positive crowd, who want so see a safe circus. Now he will speed on adds and billboards, while cleaning up the acts. The rubberneckers have had a taste of blood and will still show up, hoping for a fall. The positive crowd will forget the fall, if B.T. Trump can show them a safe circus. They will also see the media as bias if they knit pick too much. Trump is smart and had to do this, because he would have spend himself out early, since he is not using big donors. Instead, he has conserved his small war chest, mostly from small donations, and will try to budget until election. He will show how it is possible to do something, with much less resources. Obama had to double the national debt to look competent. Trump can do much more, with less. He is showing his resilience under fire.
"Iranian" is not a religion or ethnic identity. It is a nationality, of a nation that had just committed an act of war against the United States. That never happened. http://www.fairus.org/facts/us_laws And it's utterly bizarre to think it did. Fruit loops. It's "P.T. Barnum", and "nit pick". Obama did not double the national debt. And so forth. While we are on the topic of Trump and slums, like this: note that the time interval mentioned there is the one in which the US - almost uniquely among First World nations - generated its own slums from its own citizenry, largely by abusing internal migrants. The motivating factor, and the justification, was racial bigotry. Trump continues that, taking advantage of that racial bigotry and those still populous slums to attract votes.
The original comment: "But a less-remarked-upon decision by Gov. Christie—to embrace Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid—is of much greater policy significance." When you get to the point where you have to start redefining words to make your argument, you've effectively conceded the argument.
I don't think that untangling a confusion between Medicaid and Obamacare amounts to a redefinition of either term. Medicaid is a longstanding government program, and is far from the same thing as Obamacare - the differences are kind of significant, to those of us who have been advocating single payer health insurance for lo these many years now, and saw one of the best ideas - expanding Medicare (yet a third program) - pre-emptively discarded by the Clinton and Obama administrations both. A targeted expansion of Medicaid coverage, voluntary by State, was part of Obamacare as passed. It was in no way an expansion of Obamacare. This is what I responded to: It was not accurate. Christie did not oppose public prayer, he did oppose expanding Obamacare, and his positions on green energy and gay marriage were - as the term is nowdays - "nuanced". So we are agreed that Christie - much like the other Republican candidates and in no way less extreme than Trump - was opposed to expanding Obamacare, and that his website's official policy position on health care, to which I linked you, was in fact his position?
