Chris Christie's Culture Of Intimidation...?

[Dirty Penguin]

I find it hard to believe that Christie had no idea his senior staff plotted against another politician on Christie's behalf. I'm sure it's possible, but I'm not feeling it. Whether or not it can be proven, I don't know, probably not.

I do think that whether he is shown to be involved or not, the outcome isn't going to be good for his political career. He is either involved and guilty of abusing his power, or he is not involved and he's an idiot for being so dense he didn't know what his senior staff was doing, although if history is any indication, being an idiot doesn't hurt your chances of being a successful politician*.



*George W Bush

I kind of agree....but if he's the best they got going into 2016 then the voters will look the other way ignore...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hitler never officially ordered the extermination of the Jews, and yet ...

That argument is as disgusting as it is irresponsible.

 

[Alceste]

That argument is as disgusting as it is irresponsible.

But is it true? Did Hitler explicitly order the murder of his Jewish prisoners? I never heard that one before. I think his point is that the leader sets the tone. A supervisor is largely responsible for the on the job behavior of his or her underlings. Anyway, one name is redacted in the emails. I'd bet money it's his.

 

[Enola]

never mind

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Anyway, one name is redacted in the emails. I'd bet money it's his.

That makes me wonder as well. If we were talking about some top secret info that even an oversight committee isn't privy to then I wouldn't have a problem...but we're talking about a situation surrounding a public bridge and a state government. So I guess it's out of the question to get the unedited documents at this.

 

[ShivaFan]

Hitler never officially ordered the extermination of the Jews, and yet no one has a problem holding him responsible, including myself.

What kind of thing is this? Let me translate some German for you, 1933 Hitler: “Every bullet that is now fired from the barrel of a police pistol is my bullet. If that is called murder, then I have committed murder, for I have ordered it.” There are many documents of direct communications involving Hitler and his top Socialist party members using the word ausrotten (eradication) of the Jews. It came top down, this is the danger of obese government such as socialism as it grows and becomes more powerful, yet fails because it is unnatural to humanity and always finds scapegoats to blame the failure on. Orders for ausrotten were not limited to Jews, it included the mentally ill. There is ample evidence that after the Jews, such madness was not to be limited in terms of race but inclusive of mindset – that the practicing Christians would be next.

You are comparing Christie to socialists like Hitler? Hitler is a convenient moniker today to paint some “enemy” as so evil is it no better than vermin. And vermin is to be “ausrotten”, eradicated. And in the time of Hitler, that is what the German National Socialists did as a moniker to paint the Jews. What cards are you playing here?

Look, I know you didn’t mean it that way, but man, you gotta’ be mindful of your own “style” in as much as you jump all over someone else’s such as Christie. You only help him when the “Nazi” card is played.

Om Namah Sivaya

 

[Leftimies]

Hitler never officially ordered the extermination of the Jews, and yet no one has a problem holding him responsible, including myself.

The way Nazi Leadership, Hitler and SS were interconnected was such, that there is no doubt in my mind that Hitler was giving the orders. Especially since he was authoritarian ruler.

Hitler waged two wars: the actual world war two, to make possible his real agenda: war against jews and inferior races. In fact, he was too focused in waging the war against jews - so much so that he lost the actual war.

I know this is off-topic, but I was appalled by the comparison you made to Hitler. Of course he gave the order - nothing in his Reich went by without his approval. Especially when it came to the Final Solution and SS. I bet my life on it - he did set in motion explicitly.

 

[Revoltingest]

Correct me if my inference is bunk, but it appears that some are claiming that Christie is culpable for everything which happens in his administration, whether he's directed the malfeasance or not. Would the claimants say this is true for all chief executives? Is Obama then responsible for all the fed gov misdeeds during his reign?
It's a better general approach to investigate whether Christie is a thug, or merely guilty of lax minion oversight.

I know from experience that my workers have done bad things without my knowledge. I once discovered that a maintenance guy (devout Xian, btw) stole a tenant's porn. I take measures to avoid such problems, but it happened nonetheless. Did it make me a thief too?

 

[freethinker44]

What kind of thing is this? Let me translate some German for you, 1933 Hitler: “Every bullet that is now fired from the barrel of a police pistol is my bullet. If that is called murder, then I have committed murder, for I have ordered it.” There are many documents of direct communications involving Hitler and his top Socialist party members using the word ausrotten (eradication) of the Jews. It came top down, this is the danger of obese government such as socialism as it grows and becomes more powerful, yet fails because it is unnatural to humanity and always finds scapegoats to blame the failure on. Orders for ausrotten were not limited to Jews, it included the mentally ill. There is ample evidence that after the Jews, such madness was not to be limited in terms of race but inclusive of mindset – that the practicing Christians would be next.

You are comparing Christie to socialists like Hitler? Hitler is a convenient moniker today to paint some “enemy” as so evil is it no better than vermin. And vermin is to be “ausrotten”, eradicated. And in the time of Hitler, that is what the German National Socialists did as a moniker to paint the Jews. What cards are you playing here?

Look, I know you didn’t mean it that way, but man, you gotta’ be mindful of your own “style” in as much as you jump all over someone else’s such as Christie. You only help him when the “Nazi” card is played.

Om Namah Sivaya

The way Nazi Leadership, Hitler and SS were interconnected was such, that there is no doubt in my mind that Hitler was giving the orders. Especially since he was authoritarian ruler.

Hitler waged two wars: the actual world war two, to make possible his real agenda: war against jews and inferior races. In fact, he was too focused in waging the war against jews - so much so that he lost the actual war.

I know this is off-topic, but I was appalled by the comparison you made to Hitler. Of course he gave the order - nothing in his Reich went by without his approval. Especially when it came to the Final Solution and SS. I bet my life on it - he did set in motion explicitly.

Wow. So that got blow way out of proportion. No credible historian thinks Hitler was unaware of or didn't order the extermination of the Jews, just that there are no official documents with Hitler's signature explicitly authorizing it. I'm not even coming close to implying that Hitler is not guilty, he is 100 percent guilty and there is no doubt in my mind that Hitler directly authorized the murder of millions of Jews. And I'm not playing the "nazi" card comparing a bridge closing to the holocaust. I was merely highlighting the flaws in an argument by using an extreme example. Calm down.

 

[freethinker44]

Would the claimants say this is true for all chief executives? Is Obama then responsible for all the fed gov misdeeds during his reign?

If it was Obama's top aides in his staff acting on his behalf, as it was with Christie, yes he is responsible.

 

[Revoltingest]

If it was Obama's top aides in his staff acting on his behalf, as it was with Christie, yes he is responsible.

I'm addressing a level of blame which exceeds "responsible" though.

 

[freethinker44]

I'm addressing a level of blame which exceeds "responsible" though.

I don't know what you mean by that, I thought I used the word responsible the same way you did in the post I replied to. I would find it hard to believe he didn't at least know about it and approve of it, maybe it didn't originate from him and maybe he didn't explicitly authorize it, but come on, it's his deputy chief of staff we are talking about here.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know what you mean by that, I thought I used the word responsible the same way you did in the post I replied to. I would find it hard to believe he didn't at least know about it and approve of it, maybe it didn't originate from him and maybe he didn't explicitly authorize it, but come on, it's his deputy chief of staff we are talking about here.

We can all agree he's responsible for the actions of his staff, even if they acted independently, without his knowledge.
But if he approved (tacitly or affirmatively) their actions, this is more than responsible...it's culpable, & he should be prosecuted.
An investigation is needed to determine which scenario applies.

Btw, I don't like Christie.

 

[freethinker44]

But if he approved (tacitly or affirmatively) their actions, this is more than responsible...it's culpable, & he should be prosecuted.
An investigation is needed to determine which scenario applies.

I totally agree. The investigation and subsequent hearing/trial should be impartial and thorough and Christie should be innocent until proven guilty, however, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be on that investigative committee and my opinions aren't bound by criminal law so I can and will make decisions based on conjecture. Also, I believe authority should be kept in check and challenged at all times and Christie is in a position with maximum authority in NJ so by default I would automatically place him under the maximum level of suspicion until he can prove otherwise.

The reason I believe he both knew and approved of it is because the alternative is to believe that his deputy chief of staff either decided on her own to get revenge on someone for Christie without his knowledge, or told him about it and even after his disapproval went ahead with it anyways.

So for the former, she had nothing to gain professionally because Christie had no knowledge so can't punish/promote without knowledge of a deed, so if this scenario happened I am to believe it was just her doing some malicious, vengeful act that had nothing to do with her and would ruin her career if anyone outside of Christie's staff found out about it but if she's successful would gain her nothing because Christie wouldn't know, and for the latter scenario I'm to believe that Christie explicitly forbid her from doing it but she did it anyways even though it had nothing to do with her and would surely ruin her career if either Christie or the public learned of it. It's just easier for me to believe that Christie is drunk on power and she did it to please him rather than threw away her whole career for nothing, I mean, she has a degree in political science so she doesn't exactly have a lot to fall back on and was probably pretty damn lucky to be where she was.

 

[Revoltingest]

I totally agree. The investigation and subsequent hearing/trial should be impartial and thorough and Christie should be innocent until proven guilty, however, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be on that investigative committee and my opinions aren't bound by criminal law so I can and will make decisions based on conjecture. Also, I believe authority should be kept in check and challenged at all times and Christie is in a position with maximum authority in NJ so by default I would automatically place him under the maximum level of suspicion until he can prove otherwise.

The reason I believe he both knew and approved of it is because the alternative is to believe that his deputy chief of staff either decided on her own to get revenge on someone for Christie without his knowledge, or told him about it and even after his disapproval went ahead with it anyways.

So for the former, she had nothing to gain professionally because Christie had no knowledge so can't punish/promote without knowledge of a deed, so if this scenario happened I am to believe it was just her doing some malicious, vengeful act that had nothing to do with her and would ruin her career if anyone outside of Christie's staff found out about it but if she's successful would gain her nothing because Christie wouldn't know, and for the latter scenario I'm to believe that Christie explicitly forbid her from doing it but she did it anyways even though it had nothing to do with her and would surely ruin her career if either Christie or the public learned of it. It's just easier for me to believe that Christie is drunk on power and she did it to please him rather than threw away her whole career for nothing, I mean, she has a degree in political science so she doesn't exactly have a lot to fall back on and was probably pretty damn lucky to be where she was.

We shall see....er, we might see.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Correct me if my inference is bunk, but it appears that some are claiming that Christie is culpable for everything which happens in his administration, whether he's directed the malfeasance or not. Would the claimants say this is true for all chief executives? Is Obama then responsible for all the fed gov misdeeds during his reign?

It sure didn't stop conservatives and others for insinuating that which happens under Obama's watch makes him responsible....

Remember, there was someone in the (Government Shutdown) thread blaming the hardships people were going through on Obama....

Take your your pick.....Benghazi, IRS...etc. etc.... conservatives and others wanted to know what did the president know and when...

It's a better general approach to investigate whether Christie is a thug, or merely guilty of lax minion oversight.

I believe both.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I don't know what you mean by that, I thought I used the word responsible the same way you did in the post I replied to. I would find it hard to believe he didn't at least know about it and approve of it, maybe it didn't originate from him and maybe he didn't explicitly authorize it, but come on, it's his deputy chief of staff we are talking about here.

I tend to agree. She said (time for some traffice problems in fort lee). The person respondied (got it) as if he knew exactly what she was talking about...which seems to me that people in the inner circle had tis planned out. The person responding never questioned why someone in her position woud even be giving orders...just (got it)

 

[freethinker44]

I tend to agree. She said (time for some traffice problems in fort lee). The person respondied (got it) as if he knew exactly what she was talking about...which seems to me that people in the inner circle had tis planned out. The person responding never questioned why someone in her position woud even be giving orders...just (got it)

I didn't think about that. Makes sense though.

 

[Revoltingest]

It sure didn't stop conservatives and others for insinuating that which happens under Obama's watch makes him responsible....
Remember, there was someone in the (Government Shutdown) thread blaming the hardships people were going through on Obama....
Take your your pick.....Benghazi, IRS...etc. etc.... conservatives and others wanted to know what did the president know and when...

What do conservatives have to do with this?
Do you mean that if Obama is fully culpable for all misdeeds under him, then Christie (being a Republican) should be too....sort of a partisan fair play or trade?

I believe both.

OK.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

What do conservatives have to do with this?
Do you mean that if Obama is fully culpable for all misdeeds under him, then Christie should be too....sort of a partisan trade?

Oh my. All I did was answer your question. I never said Christie is fully culpable for the misdeeds of his underlings....unless evidence is brought to light that he was. I certinly don't think Obama is unless there's evidence that he should be...