NJ Gov Chris Christie proof that the GOP isn't doomed.

[Fugus]

No. They think it will be better for them, personally.

Pretty much this. Most of the republicans I have met in my life and heard too personally sound something like this.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYqF_BtIwAU

[Laize]

I don´t get the GOP... Do they think that removing unions and giving companies free reigns will bring out their altruistic side?

Unions in America don't work like they do in Scandinavia.

They don't usually have a good rapport with the companies.

The issue has never been about "giving companies free reign" but stopping unions from having it.

[FusedMass]

It's a little odd. If a Republican had done something bad or corrupted. People would find it outrageous that you can compare the worst person and hold them as an example to the rest of the Republican Party. But if they do something good like Thank Obama when they're city is hit by a massive storm then it must be proof that the party isn't doomed.

[Fugus]

Unions in America don't work like they do in Scandinavia.

They don't usually have a good rapport with the companies.

The issue has never been about "giving companies free reign" but stopping unions from having it.

Incorrect Laize. BAD Unions go for free reign. GOOD Unions go for what is best for the workers and the company as a whole.

And you are correct from what I have seen that most unions don't get along with management when it comes to negotiations. Mainly due to the fact that they are wanting to make sure their people are taken care of while the management is trying to get labor as cheaply as possible regardless of its effects on its employees.

[Laize]

Incorrect Laize. BAD Unions go for free reign. GOOD Unions go for what is best for the workers and the company as a whole.

And you are correct from what I have seen that most unions don't get along with management when it comes to negotiations. Mainly due to the fact that they are wanting to make sure their people are taken care of while the management is trying to get labor as cheaply as possible regardless of its effects on its employees.

A) There are definitely good unions out there. You'll be hard pressed to find one that doesn't say free reign (AKA: Closed Shops) is in the best interests of everyone, though.

B) That's all negotiation is. 2 people with opposing goals (One wants to buy something for as little as possible, the other wants to sell it for as much as possible) coming to a mutually agreeable stance.

[Fugus]

A) There are definitely good unions out there. You'll be hard pressed to find one that doesn't say free reign (AKA: Closed Shops) is in the best interests of everyone, though.

B) That's all negotiation is. 2 people with opposing goals (One wants to buy something for as little as possible, the other wants to sell it for as much as possible) coming to a mutually agreeable stance.

A) When negotiations have failed, sometimes the best actions the employees can do is close shop and hit the executives where it hurts to bring them back to the negotiating tables or else the union itself is near useless since they have nothing to bargain with without that.

B) Most negotiations yes, I agree with that. The better deal is when the unions (what a good union does anyways) negotiates for what is best for both, only company I have seen do this without the need for Unions was Ford when Henry Ford opened it, don't know of any others where the company did what was best for it's peoples but never really read much looking for them. But even then, the way the negotiations go that still leaves them requesting far more than they think they can get just to get them settle closer to their side. But the fact of the matter is recently things have gone so far into the companies favors that the unions going for everything they can get really isn't a bad idea with the exception of a few places where the companies aren't doing well.

If a company is making $50,000 profit off you a month and they only want to pay you $1000 a month for your labor, yeah, you need the unions to fight for more.

[Fahrenheit]

Being from NJ. I can get behind him (but, so can like 4 other people).

If their is one Republican that can throw his weight around with the tea party nutjobs out west it's him. The guy is a bulldog (sometimes almost too much of one) when it comes to his point of view.

Homeboy needs to lose some weight prior to 2016, he's like 5'8" and like 300+ lbs.

[Grizzly Willy]

Being from NJ. I can get behind him (but, so can like 4 other people).

If their is one Republican that can throw his weight around with the tea party nutjobs out west it's him. The guy is a bulldog (sometimes almost too much of one) when it comes to his point of view.

Homeboy needs to lose some weight prior to 2016, he's like 5'8" and like 300+ lbs.

I keep saying, he's Taft Jr.!

[dercaderca]

Well shit. I was hoping it would be more than 3 weeks before I started hearing about the next election.

[Fahrenheit]

I keep saying, he's Taft Jr.!

I hear you, but, with the whole obesity epidemic in modern western countries do we really need the "leader of the free world" to be obese. I'm not saying he has to slim down to Barack "thin as a rail" Obama proportions... but do a few sit ups and eat a salad once in a while.

---------- Post added 2012-11-27 at 02:18 PM ----------

Well shit. I was hoping it would be more than 3 weeks before I started hearing about the next election.

I'm looking forward to it. As a guy who generally sides more with republican views (at least in fiscal matters) I can't wait to see what happens. I'm glad they lost again, we really need a small scale revolt in the GOP, its been hijacked for a long time and only gotten worse in the past 2 decades, we need some moderate, not batshit crazy, republicans to make some noise. Time to put down the guns and bibles and get with the real world.

[smelltheglove]

A) There are definitely good unions out there. You'll be hard pressed to find one that doesn't say free reign (AKA: Closed Shops) is in the best interests of everyone, though.

B) That's all negotiation is. 2 people with opposing goals (One wants to buy something for as little as possible, the other wants to sell it for as much as possible) coming to a mutually agreeable stance.

A) you know that a strike hurts the workers far more than the company right?

B) unions are weaker than they have been for a very long time. walmart style employment is creeping into more and more businesses. big corporations are having a field day here, creating huge amounts of people that can work every hour of the week and still be poor, and you think unions are the problem? you think these megacorps are doing right by society?

[Laize]

A) When negotiations have failed, sometimes the best actions the employees can do is close shop and hit the executives where it hurts to bring them back to the negotiating tables or else the union itself is near useless since they have nothing to bargain with without that.

A closed shop is one in which the employer is not allowed to employ people who are not union members. Nor are employees allowed to quit the union and remain employed. It's not the same as a strike.

B) Most negotiations yes, I agree with that. The better deal is when the unions (what a good union does anyways) negotiates for what is best for both, only company I have seen do this without the need for Unions was Ford when Henry Ford opened it, don't know of any others where the company did what was best for it's peoples but never really read much looking for them. But even then, the way the negotiations go that still leaves them requesting far more than they think they can get just to get them settle closer to their side. But the fact of the matter is recently things have gone so far into the companies favors that the unions going for everything they can get really isn't a bad idea with the exception of a few places where the companies aren't doing well.

If a company is making $50,000 profit off you a month and they only want to pay you $1000 a month for your labor, yeah, you need the unions to fight for more.

Off of JUST you? Then yeah you might need to fight for more. If they're making $50,000 off of 50 employees, however...

---------- Post added 2012-11-27 at 04:10 PM ----------

Being from NJ. I can get behind him (but, so can like 4 other people).

If their is one Republican that can throw his weight around with the tea party nutjobs out west it's him. The guy is a bulldog (sometimes almost too much of one) when it comes to his point of view.

Homeboy needs to lose some weight prior to 2016, he's like 5'8" and like 300+ lbs.

I don't see how his weight has any bearing on the way he governs the shit out of his office.

[starlord]

I don't see how his weight has any bearing on the way he governs the shit out of his office.

it shouldnt, but it does.

[Felya]

He is going to have to stop getting blamed for Obama winning for that to happen. My favorite comment from election week, was fox talking about Christie and one of the master-debaters saying 'he didn't have to hug Obama'.

I don't get the shock of it all either. Washington, NY, California and NJ has had more than a few republicans elected. Giuliani was elected by the liberal NYC more than once. Arnold is probebly the most famous recent republican to win in California.

If nothing else, this should be treated as a sign of the sort of approval republicans could get from democrat heavy states, if they appear to genuinely working together to reach a common goal.

[Laize]

it shouldnt, but it does.

No, it doesn't. He governs like a madcunt and his weight has no bearing on it. People just want to resort to personal attacks because they come up with some bullshit idea like "If he can't take care of himself, how's he gonna take care of the state?!" when it's blatantly obvious he knows exactly what he's doing.

[smelltheglove]

I don't see how his weight has any bearing on the way he governs the shit out of his office.

in this day and age where so much is dependent on image and physical appeal, it would matter in an election. sad, but true. if a candidate was so fucking fat s/he had to be wheeled around on a fork lift id still vote for him/her if i felt s/he was the best person for the job. id still mock them though, lol. yes, im probably a bad person

[Themius]

Chris Christie is alright, but I don't see him winning among republicans nation wide.

[Cthulhu 2020]

He'd be an ideal GOP candidate for 2016. Unfortunately him being nominated to run for president by the GOP would involve him either going extremely right toward's the Tea Party's extreme (and often insane) views, or the Tea Party becoming more moderate and less completely insane.

[Felya]

No, it doesn't. He governs like a madcunt and his weight has no bearing on it. People just want to resort to personal attacks because they come up with some bullshit idea like "If he can't take care of himself, how's he gonna take care of the state?!" when it's blatantly obvious he knows exactly what he's doing.

Do you think Christie making a 47% are lazy, moochers comment, would sound the same as it come from Romney? His size, will make all attempts at painting opponent as lazy, like republicans did this election, much more difficult to acomplish due to the associated stereo types.

[starlord]

No, it doesn't. He governs like a madcunt and his weight has no bearing on it. People just want to resort to personal attacks because they come up with some bullshit idea like "If he can't take care of himself, how's he gonna take care of the state?!" when it's blatantly obvious he knows exactly what he's doing.

i dont think its right, but its well known that looks are a factor in elections. its possible he may he able to overcome it. but it seems his main problem is convincing the republicans hes good enough for them.