Is There Any Chance Christie Did NOT Know About the Dirty Tricks?

We, the people of New York and New Jersey, have seen the "nothingness that is Chris Christie." His true unscrupulous mercenary nature has been exposed, naked, on the world stage. Anyone who doesn't believe he attempted a quid pro quo in exchange for giving FEMA funds to the Hoboken mayor, Dawn Zimmer, is out to lunch mentally. Anyone who does not believe Christie was well-aware of the GWB bridge shut down is out of touch with reality or is trying to cover up for him. This current NJ governor micro-manages everything and nothing of major consequence escape him.

So far, there is nothing concrete in the media to actually tie Christie to the GWB scandal because all e-messages were deleted, but I firmly believe when the prosecutor is finished a former someone among Christie's cabinet will admit to the coverup and implement the current NJ governor. Meanwhile, Christie's poll rating is in the basement and he's not even in third place. Frankly, I don't think he stands a snowball's chance in hell of ever being president of the US.

there's nothing bitter about pointing out that the right appeals to one's baser instincts which is why you'll never find one of them emulating the Uruguayan President. You don't know what the left is, you've just got fifty shades of right.

Bit of a tangent on a bit about Mujica, a few posts worth:

http://able2know.org/topic/37815-1#post-5769166

How many politicians in your fine country have done this? I'm guessing not a one either on the left or the right. Do you really want to try and tell me about 50 shades of right when you can't even be honest about a generality. It's weak sauce izzy and you know it. How many politicians in the EU have done such a thing? I'm going to say none again. So your post about Uruguay is pointless if he is the only politician who has done this. It makes it a him thing, not a left or right thing.

We have politicians who don't sell out. The right is all about appealing to the worst in human nature, it takes a cynical view of humanity, that we're all greedy and selfish. The left shows there is decency and good in the world.

Is there any chance Chris Christie did not find the cheese doodles hidden under the couch cushions?

So you have UK politicians who donate a majority of their salary to charity?

It's actually an interesting little google project to look up politicians who donate their salaries to charity.

The one izzytp has id'd is the one that comes up most often - then it is JFK and RFK.

I can find a handful of Canadian politicians at various levels of government who regularly donate their salaries to charity. Most, but not all, from the left (but then, even our right is left of the US left).

I can find info that a lot of US politicians promised to donate their salaries to charity during the 2013 federal government shutdown - but I can't find anything that shows that any did (doesn't mean they didn't, just means it probably wasn't as newsworthy).

I'm dubious of Izzy's claims and I'm only asking him to verify that his own politicians do the same thing. They must follow in the footsteps of the politician he posted about for his post to have any bite. If they don't come close then they are no better then politicians here.

Inversely, when you look charitable giving here in the US, it is red states who give more to charity then blue states. When it comes to countries and charity there are a few ways to look at it. The US tops the list in pure money but if you look as a % of GDP, we are towards the bottom of the list.

a quick google search shows some British politicians donating their salaries and/or pensions to charity

You really miss the point. It's not just about what proportion of one's pay one donates to charity. The most important thing is that Jose Mujica did not use his position to enrich himself like so many Latin American presidents. Your country has spent the best part of the last century fighting people like Jose Mujica, and aiding those who were corrupt. Why would you do that if not to quash the idea that not everyone is selfish and corrupt like those on the right, that some people actually do have higher ideals.

Charity is often used as a sop by the megarich and their lickspittles to give the illusion that they actually care, where in reality their charitable donations are a fraction of what they would have to pay under an equitable tax regime. More often than not charity is used to provide something that should be the state's responsibility. This smoke and mirrors charitable donation is a far cry from the honest action taken by Jose Mujica.

I think we were more concerned with the spread of communism in south America. I actually respect what Jose Mujica has done but I wouldn't expect every politician to do this.

When you use the term "equitable tax regime", you don't really mean equitable which is essence means equal, you mean you want to pump the wealthy for most of what they have. Equal would be a flat tax. I'm not a fan of a progressive tax system which is really wealth redistribution.

You're happy with the top 1% owning more than everyone else combined. Therefore you must be happy with this trend continuing. I'd like to reverse it. I think pumping the wealthy has to be preferable to pumping the poor which is what we're doing now.

Unlike you I don't suffer from envy of others and what they make and or produce. I don't see success as a fault that should be punished.

Have the taxes on the non-wealthy been raised anytime in the last decade or more? No they were actually cut during the Bush years. It wasn't only the rich who got a tax cut, it was everyone. He even created a 10% tax bracket for the very low income. I believe everyone should keep more of what they make, not just the rich. I'd like to keep more of what I make.

There go those negative emotions again. It's not envy, it's a desire for justice. I don't give a **** about not having a lear jet, I do care about the millions of people who don't have clean drinking water.

I think lickspittles are the most envious of all.

Because there's no such thing as indirect taxation. You're having a laugh.

Justice? How is over taxing the wealthy, justice? You assume they are guilty of something if you are seeking justice against them for another country having dirty water.

You should be more concerned with why that country isn't taking care of their citizens. I realize there are places in Africa where those leaders don't care and they abuse their people. Raising taxes on the wealthy guy in the US isn't going to have any impact on a 3rd world country where the leader is a tyrant. You can send all the tax money you want to to build and create clean drinking wells and that tyrant is only going to stuff that money in his pockets. You would be much better off donating that money to charities who go and do the work themselves. You should encourage people to donate to such groups. I believe Matt Damon has a charity that does that very thing.

"Lickspittles" that's funny. Do I envy the wealthy? No. Do I aspire to be wealthy myself? I sure do, but I also realize that I'm not going to be a millionaire either, I don't work in a field where you become a millionaire unless you go IPO and things go really well. In that case, I'm sure you wouldn't mind me being taxed at a huge rate, for justice.

They're guilty of exploiting the working man, and mineral rights. Big business is guilty of so many crimes across the globe. Try taking your rose tinted spectacles off.

You do fit a type that aspires to the more base human instincts, being more concerned with getting filthy rich than making the World a better place.

This is the rationale for supporting death squads and instructing military personnel from Central and South America in the fine art of torture. Wow! Apparently, supporting bloody dictators like Pinochet and others does not present a moral problem to you at all. "The end justifies the means."

Have you ever considered the possibility that the policy of installing and supporting right-wing dictators may turn out to be counterproductive in the long run? I guess the excesses of Batista in Cuba (another U.S.-supported dictator) had nothing to do with Castro coming to power. In 1953 the U.S. deposed a democratically elected leader and installed a dictator known as the Shah. The result? As a result, the world now has to deal with an "Islamic Republic" that has one of the worst records of human rights violations in the world. Even your hero Ron Paul, the darling of the John Birch Society, agrees that the U.S. was wrong to install the Shah in Iran.

Please study some history. The U.S. was meddling in Latin America before the Communists came to power in Russia. So, please stop with the "resisting Communism" line. If there had never been a Communist threat, we still would have been messing around in Latin American to promote "business interests."

Baldimo, if you had been born in the U.S.S.R. in, say, 1950, I have no doubt you would have been a "good" little Communist and would have supported the various interventions in the satellite countries to keep them from straying to "capitalism." You're no better.