What about the Governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie?Turquoise wrote:
...
Donald Trump's appeal is that he's independently wealthy, which can be a plus in terms of vested interests. In that respect, I can relate to your supposition.
...
True, but I still wonder what the point of these divisions are if we're all still subject to the same federal government. It's a quasi-separation that seems to result in a lot of sectionalist agendas.LividBovine wrote:
Isn't it already split up into 50 parts. Just sayin.Turquoise wrote:
Another advantage would involve splitting up the U.S., but again, I know that isn't going to happen.
In 1998 Christie registered as a lobbyist for the firm of Dughi, Hewit & Palatucci, alongside fellow partner and later, gubernatorial campaign fundraiser Bill Palatucci. Between 1999 and 2001, Christie and Palatucci lobbied on behalf of, among others, GPU Energy for deregulation of New Jersey's electric and gas industry; the Securities Industry Association to block the inclusion of securities fraud under the state's Consumer Fraud Act; Hackensack University Medical Center for state grants, and the University of Phoenix for a New Jersey higher education license.Harmor wrote:
What about the Governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie?Turquoise wrote:
...
Donald Trump's appeal is that he's independently wealthy, which can be a plus in terms of vested interests. In that respect, I can relate to your supposition.
...
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/5829/govchristie.jpg
I've heard good things about him. And he appears not be to beholden to special interests.
Essentially, what you're arguing for is more Federal power/resources going back to the States. The US doesn't have to split apart...it just has to go back to its Constitutional roots.Turquoise wrote:
The problem in my mind concerning the presidency is that the U.S. is just too big. We have too much power and wealth consolidated under one government. I think we'd be better off if we split into about 6 pieces or so.
That still doesn't resolve the fact that anyone who gets elected to the presidency is able to push sectionalist agendas that benefit their home state at the expense of the rest of the country. It seems to happen with every administration.FEOS wrote:
Essentially, what you're arguing for is more Federal power/resources going back to the States. The US doesn't have to split apart...it just has to go back to its Constitutional roots.Turquoise wrote:
The problem in my mind concerning the presidency is that the U.S. is just too big. We have too much power and wealth consolidated under one government. I think we'd be better off if we split into about 6 pieces or so.
I don't think the President can do that. That's the benefit of checks and balances, even with the same party controlling the Legislative Branch. If the President's agenda would impact their home constituency negatively, they would fight it because it would impact their re-election chances.Turquoise wrote:
That still doesn't resolve the fact that anyone who gets elected to the presidency is able to push sectionalist agendas that benefit their home state at the expense of the rest of the country. It seems to happen with every administration.FEOS wrote:
Essentially, what you're arguing for is more Federal power/resources going back to the States. The US doesn't have to split apart...it just has to go back to its Constitutional roots.Turquoise wrote:
The problem in my mind concerning the presidency is that the U.S. is just too big. We have too much power and wealth consolidated under one government. I think we'd be better off if we split into about 6 pieces or so.
Turquoise wrote:
True, but I still wonder what the point of these divisions are if we're all still subject to the same federal government. It's a quasi-separation that seems to result in a lot of sectionalist agendas.LividBovine wrote:
Isn't it already split up into 50 parts. Just sayin.Turquoise wrote:
Another advantage would involve splitting up the U.S., but again, I know that isn't going to happen.
FEOS wrote:
...it just has to go back to its Constitutional roots.
Let Newt run, it would be the worst ass whooping they've ever suffered.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yes, voting for a guy who ran on a platform of Christian Values, cheated on his wife while in office and who was forced to resign his seat in the House (while Speaker no less) is someone definitely worthy of your vote. Once again Harmor, you've shown an inability to do anything more than read headlines and be led to the opinion others want you to have.
Last edited by oChaos.Haze (2010-08-19 00:39:39)
What exactly does she approve of?Harmor wrote:
http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/666/ … 297c3d.jpg
