[Video] Rand Paul vs. Chris Christie on the 4th amendment

[luctor-et-emergo]

Christie Lied About Being Appointed U.S. Attorney on Sept. 10, 2001

http://gawker.com/christie-lied-about-being-appointed-u-s-attorney-on-se-1722723371



Why Did Chris Christie Say He Was Appointed U.S. Attorney The Day Before 9/11 When He Wasn’t?

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/08/07/3689230/chris-christie-september-10/



edit: 1000th Post!!!

Rand needs to bring that up on Fox with Chris Wallace on sunday.

 

[Jan2017]

Rand needs to bring that up on Fox with Chris Wallace on sunday.

Would that be after the question about what will Rand be doing after he is excluded from the Simi Valley debate
because of the upcoming polling Murdoch is gonna set-up with a bullshit interview on Fox Sunday (?)

 

[RandFTW]

It seems as though Christie has a half decent claim to support this (at least a story someone who supported him would believe). What confused me during the debate is Christie's statement about 9/11 happening in "his state". As far as I know New Jersey is his state. Am I missing something or is he just too large to occupy one state at a time?

 

[TheTexan]

we are sooooooo close to becoming a dictatorship...

Yes, but the important thing is we will be safe from terrorists.

 

[CPUd]

Pretty sure this is also BS:

CHRISTIE: Yes, I do. And I’ll tell you why: because I’m the only person on this stage who’s actually filed applications under the Patriot Act, who has gone before the federal — the Foreign Intelligence Service court, who has prosecuted and investigated and jailed terrorists in this country after September 11th.

 

[Mr.NoSmile]

Huh. Haven't watched much of the debate- don't intend to- outside of a few moments with Trump and this one, but for as many people who say that Paul is too soft-spoken and not aggressive, this was a pretty good moment. This is the sort of aggression that we almost next to never got from his Ron Paul for obvious reasons when he goes directly after a candidate and doesn't pull punches. Whether that's spun as a positive or negative for Paul remains to be seen since the news is still figuring that one out, but while some would say Christie being with Obama in the aftermath of Sandy was a sign of bipartisan in the face of a major crisis, many on the right see it as a sort of betrayal. I don't completely understand that since the right-wing is quite odd with its logic, but whatever. Still a good moment for Paul.

 

[CPUd]

Huh. Haven't watched much of the debate- don't intend to- outside of a few moments with Trump and this one, but for as many people who say that Paul is too soft-spoken and not aggressive, this was a pretty good moment. This is the sort of aggression that we almost next to never got from his Ron Paul for obvious reasons when he goes directly after a candidate and doesn't pull punches. Whether that's spun as a positive or negative for Paul remains to be seen since the news is still figuring that one out, but while some would say Christie being with Obama in the aftermath of Sandy was a sign of bipartisan in the face of a major crisis, many on the right see it as a sort of betrayal. I don't completely understand that since the right-wing is quite odd with its logic, but whatever. Still a good moment for Paul.

It has a lot to do with the political climate at the time. During the primaries, "because Obama" was literally the only argument they had for people to get behind Mitt, so they pushed it hard. At the OK state convention, Gov. Fallin commanded the audience to support Mitt, where she got a lot of boos from the Ron Paul supporters. Then she said there must be a bunch of Obama lovers in the room. At the same time, Christie was gaining popularity because they believed he could grab independent votes in blue states, particularly NY and NJ, possibly could be a good running mate for Mitt, or backup plan for 2016 if Mitt loses. Then Sandy and "the hug" happened just before the RNC, when the anti-Obama fervor was at its peak, and those people were calling for Christie to get kicked out of the party.

By 2013, Christie was polling #1 again nationally. Until Rand's drone filibuster.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I have never been so proud of Rand.

i thought that was Ron there for a moment, but it was Rand.

You two were quoted in a David Weigel article over at WaPo (and this thread was linked to):

hxxp://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/10/libertarians-nitpick-rand-pauls-debate-showing-as-paul-keeps-firing-on-trump/

Is that a good thing or a bad thing ... ?

 

[Jan2017]

Sounds good to me . . .

In the campaign's view, Paul got the better of Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.) in an exchange about the Fourth Amendment.
A new 170-second YouTube ad boils the debate down to Paul's insults of Donald Trump and the Christie back-and-forth;
discussions on RonPaulForums found skeptical libertarians cheering on both moments.

"I have never been so proud of Rand," wrote one commenter.
"I thought that was Ron there for a moment," wrote another, "but it was Rand."