*on-the-fence*

Is Khris Khristie Krazy for supporting Dog-whistle Donald? Yes.

Eh, Trump isn't that bad. Would be better than Cruz or Rubio probably.

Eh, burning to death isn't that bad. Would be better than being eaten alive or downing probably.

Probably the best option out of those three.

Hahaha - you septics will get the President you deserve.

Donald Trump is not a joke: A warning to Americans from an Italian who survived Berlusconi.

"Like Trump, Berlusconi consistently seemed too absurd to be true. And yet he was. He won elections again, and again, and again, thriving off any and all attention. People didn’t take him or what he said seriously. Then one day we woke up to find our government overrun by criminals, our economy destroyed, and our cultural mores perverted to the extent that the objectification of women was commonplace. There was no more laughing left to do."

Full article: http://qz.com/624065/a-tip-to-americans-from-an-italian-who-saw-berlusconi-get-elected-again-and-again-and-again/

If Christie wanted to hurt Marco Rubio, he couldn't have picked a better way to do it. In the short term it takes the news cycle away from Rubio's debate attacks on Trump, and that's all to the good for Trump, because all short-term gains can translate into votes on Super Tuesday, which means long-term gains. I don't think Christie himself will have any enduring effect on the primary, though.

would you rather have someone in power who had a plan to destroy the economy, or someone who seems crazy but still has no plan?

I am an independent but I am well aware that I prefer more liberal social policies, a mix of socialist and capitalist ideals, and strong conservative foreign policy beliefs. I would personally prefer Rubio or Kasich over Trump and on the democratic side id prefer sanders over Clinton.

I feel bad for Chris Christie, he's actually a halfway decent candidate in relation to the remaining three. He and Kasich just get shoved into the meat grinder and it makes no sense because they are two that could have had a positive impact. Trump, Cruz, and Rubio will all have quite the opposite and that's simply because their party is so torn up that they're going to end up polarizing each other's bases.

Fuck Kasich. He's a monster pretending to be normal. He's much much more conservative as a governor than as a candidate.

I'll assume CC did this to be first in line for Trump's VP.

Newspaper review of past Christie's actions calls him a bully that goes after people that attack him or at least don't support his ego. So it's more anti-Rubio, then pro Trump.

Trump will pick the VP that's first to stroke his ego by kissing his feet. I doubt Trump would trust any of them to get behind him to kiss anything else.

Was he out of the race voluntarily or is that forced by the party or something?

Voluntarily. He campaigned heavily in one of the early primaries (New Hampshire) which is where less ideological Republicans tend to do better, and he didn't do well.

If the party had enough control to make him drop out, they'd have enough control to keep him from endorsing the Donald. He voluntarily dropped out after shit performances in Iowa and NH.

I don't think the Donald will pick some feckless clod as his running mate. He's invested so much in selling himself as the call it like it is, no bullshit, anti-PC guy that I think he has to go all in on that idea. Christie would be a perfect fit towards that end.

The one thing that Christie's had from the start of his political career, which I've had a view of from across the river in PA, is an eye on Washington; and Trump's VP is his last chance. His odds are slim of being a presidential candidate in the next election cycle, and they'll be none if he loses the next gubernatorial election in November 2017. His political future will be much safer if he gets out of Jersey this year.

I also think that you and many other are criminally underestimating Trump, and I'm not saying that as one of his supporters.

^ that was to Randomizer

I asked because I would expect Trump to use the VP position as a 'bribe', so staying in the race would be the best strategy for becoming VP following that logic.

Rubio has racked up a huge number of mainstream Republican endorsements, while Trump has few. Meanwhile, Trump's chance of actually winning the Republican nomination increases daily. So, at least from a nakedly self-interested perspective, Christie's endorsement of Trump was easily the best move Christie could have made to have a shot at a place in a Trump administration. Kasich might have made more sense considering that Christie's central campaign theme was "governors make better presidents," but Kasich has no chance of winning, so that would have gained him nothing.

The timing of Christie's endorsement of Trump was also pretty brilliant. Coming the day after Rubio's impressive debate performance against Trump, Christie's endorsement ensured the daily news cycle would focus on Trump's strengths rather than his weaknesses.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-02-24/a-look-inside-trump-s-global-deals-exposes-trouble-in-many-spots

Trump has a history of picking losers for business deals so I don't expect him to improve for a VP pick. Being able to promote himself and his brand to make money for himself doesn't mean it will make him into a president. There aren't enough people that support him.

"You can fool some of the people all the time, you can fool all the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time." - A Lincoln

I'm always amazes at Christie's absolute lack of principles and backbone and naked ambition. It shouldn't but it does.

I mean who should he have endorsed? He has been friends with Trump for years and dislikes Rubio. The only other option was Cruz and nobody likes Cruz.

He could have endorsed none of the major candidates. I agree it's not exactly a shocker, though.

So endorse the fascist?

They're all fascists.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/11/20/3724509/rubio-trump-shut-down-mosques/

Ok they might not all tweet Mussolini quotes, but still.

Trump is beyond the pale, I'm glad that Christie willingly tarred himself with that brush, and hopefully right before trump nosedives.

Not if you're living in a country Rubio plans on bombing.

Does Rubio plan on bombing a country that Trump doesn't?

Yes, actually. Trump has criticized the Iraq war and opposes an Syrian in Syria. Rubio is a neo-con's wet dream.

*intervention in Syria

Didn't Trump say he wants to "Bomb the shit out of ISIS" and "I'll take the oil for our country"

I think attacks are sticking on Trump now, I actually am at a point where I hope he makes it through because it would ensure a Democratic presidential victory and hopefully a large swing leftward in congress.

I would not want to take the risk. He's beaten odds before.

I'm a bit amazed that Republicans are acted shocked and outraged at Donald Drumpf for not adequately distancing himself from David Duke when appealing to white supremacists been the at most thinly veiled guiding philosophy of the party since at least 2008.

"Didn't Trump say he wants to "Bomb the shit out of ISIS" and "I'll take the oil for our country"

He has repeatedly opposed regime change in Syria and the lunacy of attacking the Syrian Arab Army in the middle of its war against the terrorists. His foreign policy is a hell of a lot better than yours.

"I'm a bit amazed that Republicans are acted shocked and outraged at Donald Drumpf for not adequately distancing himself from David Duke when appealing to white supremacists been the at most thinly veiled guiding philosophy of the party since at least 2008. "

Yes, it's so thinly veiled that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th -running candidates for the Republican nomination this year are all not white, and one of those - the candidate the Republican Party establishment is all rallying around to prevent the victory of the thus far 1st place white candidate - is even an anchor baby! Man, those Republicans sure are a crafty and devious bunch when it comes to racial politics!

"He has repeatedly opposed regime change in Syria and the lunacy of attacking the Syrian Arab Army in the middle of its war against the terrorists. His foreign policy is a hell of a lot better than yours. "

Amen to that. He also called out the Bush family's bullshit lies about Iraqi WMDs on national TV, to the complete astonishment of the punditocracy who still insist that the Emperor was wearing 12 layers of clothes. Lies, it must be remembered, that have killed over a million people and counting. Trump has been closer to the progressive line on foreign policy far more than the warmongering Hillary has over the last 16 years. The only question is how much of it is an act, and how much of it he really believes.

Oh, and Christie isn't going to be Trump's Veep. Say what you will about him, but The Donald isn't stupid enough to select someone with the motive, means, and unscrupulousness to have him assassinated. Just like Obama wasn't stupid enough to select Hillary for VP in '08.

Considering he is for universal health care, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and a "speak softly but carry a big stick" foreign policy, I'm surprised liberals act as if he is the worst on the Republican side. I'd never come close to voting for him, but I agree that a warmongering and centrist democrat like Hillary is the last thing this country needs.

Trump was pro-choice ten years ago, now he's pro-life except in cases of incest, rape, or danger to the mother's life. I don't know what his position on gay marriage was ten years ago, but now he's in favor of traditional marriage and calls the issue one of states' rights. And his plan for ISIS is to bomb them and "take the oil." Considering that, I'm surprised by DivineMercy's characterization of Trump's positions.

Of course, that's just addressing the terms presented. When it comes to reasons not to vote for Trump, the fact that he's an authoritarian bigoted asshole with no principles beyond self-aggrandizement via appeal to the lowest common denominator kinda trumps any single policy position he claims to have taken.

Wait we're supposed to be impressed the GOP has two Cuban-Americans running, that somehow cancels out the fact that one of them openly is allied with the Cliven Bundy thugs in Nevada who think slavery was good, or the fact that a large percentage of the GOP electorate think that abolishing slavery was a bad idea or that Muslims should be banned from America? Or the fact that they want to use gestapo tactics to deport the same people they supposedly represent?

But we're expected to believe Jared Diamond is racist, huh? Are you mad?

PLEASE VOTE TRUMP IN ...I ALWAYS WANTED TO SEE WHAT ROME WAS LIKE BEFORE IT FELL.

AND NOW I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TOO WATCH FIRST HAND.

I'M PRETTY SURE THEY THOUGHT THEY WOULD LAST FOREVER AS WELL..

AS THE MORAL ETHICAL POLITICAL FINANCIAL RULERS OF THE WORLD ..

USA " YOUR FIRED" .

:-)

Tolstoy, I don't think trotting out a few tokens running well behind the leader is quite as dispositive as you seem to think it is. First, because Cuban Americans have had a different and much easier experience than pretty much any other non northern European group of immigrants. Second, because Carson, Cruz, and Rubio are all being crushed by Drumpf. Third, because it,s never been hard, in American history, to find a bunch of Uncle Ruckuses willing to praise the decency and kindness of the powerful. But that really doesn mitigate the fact that Republican policies have uniformly advocated the greater disenfranchisement of the least powerful groups within our society, groups that are disproportionally not considered white. And those points do not conceal that Republicans embrace the votes and ideas of people who have given ample evidence to support the claim that they do not consider nonwhite, non-straight, or non-Christian individuals as really equally worthy of dignity, and respect.

Ron Paul says Bernie Sanders is the most free market of all the candidates. Meanwhile Tolstoy is doing the spade work as an apologist for how fascist and anti-Muslim the GOP has become.