Why I don't like Christie

Normally I'd be against joking about someone's weight. But Christie's loudmouth bullying ways leave him open to it. Not to mention the fact that he seems to use his loud voice and body mass to intimidate. I think his size is relevant to how he behaves.  Such as in this video. Do we think a skinny guy would behave this way?  Maybe, but probably not.  In my opinion this is a guy who is accustomed to using his size and his voice to shut people up:

ridski said:

fairplay said:

Gilgul said:

You can not set a line where shaming on physical characteristics is ok. It is either never ok (which I think) or it is always ok.

If I poke fun at Hitler's mustache, would you dislike that? If I mock Mussolini's arrogant physical traits, his upraised snout, or Goering' s girth, would you object?

Now I want to start a Kraut-rock band called Goering's Girth.

ml1 said:

Normally I'd be against joking about someone's weight. But Christie's loudmouth bullying ways leave him open to it. Not to mention the fact that he seems to use his loud voice and body mass to intimidate. I think his size is relevant to how he behaves.  Such as in this video. Do we think a skinny guy would behave this way?  Maybe, but probably not.  In my opinion this is a guy who is accustomed to using his size and his voice to shut people up:

Precisely.

ml1 said:

Normally I'd be against joking about someone's weight. But Christie's loudmouth bullying ways leave him open to it. Not to mention the fact that he seems to use his loud voice and body mass to intimidate. I think his size is relevant to how he behaves.  Such as in this video. Do we think a skinny guy would behave this way?  Maybe, but probably not.  In my opinion this is a guy who is accustomed to using his size and his voice to shut people up:

Finer, earlier days...i think he was actually showing off his thunder thighs last weekend.

She exceeded her economic potential thanks to Christie's position as governor and his network of cronies.

http://www.app.com/story/news/...

Heynj said:

His wife recently went on record saying the governor in his career has yet to live up to his economic potential. If he has not already, he will soon be fielding offers from law firms in the region, I'm guessing. He could be earning seven figures and living quite happily in their original family home in Mendham. Remember when he choppered in for his son's baseball game and we thought that was so bad? Little did we know.

yahooyahoo said:

She exceeded her economic potential thanks to Christie's position as governor and his network of cronies.

but apparently a million a year isn't much money, according to the guv, as quoted in that article.

The Christies earned a combined total of $913,420 in 2015 according to the couple’s tax returns. Of that, Mary Pat was paid $698,708 by Angelo Gordon. Chris Christie earns a statutory $175,000 salary from the state. Returns for 2016 haven’t been made public yet

"The fact that my wife and I, who are not wealthy by current standards, that we have to file a tax return that's that thick ... is insane," Christie told the editorial board of the Manchester (N.H.) Union-Leader, holding his thumb and forefinger several inches apart. "We don't have nearly that much money."

According to the household income percentile calculator, an annual income of $900K+  puts his lordship's household in the top 0.3%.  Not wealthy indeed...

 https://dqydj.com/household-in...

FDR's body was a disgusting, crippled representation of how he was so dependent on others and how he created policies to allow so many to become dependent on others through the government.  He started the social safety net, so of course his legs are fair game for ridicule.  

Fairplay - you good with that?  Or is body-shaming OK just for people you don't like?

I'm no Christie fan at all, mainly due to his failure to address education funding issues, but criticism based on physical attributes is a slippery slope at best.  I'm surprised that some of the so-called progressives on this thread think it is OK.  I guess it's only recommended to judge someone based on the content of their character when you like or agree with them.  Pretty disappointing.

Ice:

It's not body-shaming. It's bad man shaming. FDR was a great leader, so his physical problems were not a source of disgust or revulsion, nor could they be helped. Gluttony, on the other hand, brings about its own visible punishment. The "content of his character" is suggested by the portulance of his corporal being.

ice said:

FDR's body was a disgusting, crippled representation of how he was so dependent on others and how he created policies to allow so many to become dependent on others through the government.  He started the social safety net, so of course his legs are fair game for ridicule.  

Fairplay - you good with that?  Or is body-shaming OK just for people you don't like?

I'm no Christie fan at all, mainly due to his failure to address education funding issues, but criticism based on physical attributes is a slippery slope at best.  I'm surprised that some of the so-called progressives on this thread think it is OK.  I guess it's only recommended to judge someone based on the content of their character when you like or agree with them.  Pretty disappointing.

FDR had personal grace. Reference to him in the same post as reference to Christie is nonsensical, and absurd.

fairplay said:

Ice:

It's not body-shaming. It's bad man shaming. FDR was a great leader, so his physical problems were not a source of disgust or revulsion, not could they be helped. Gluttony, on the other hand, brings about its own visible punishment.

ice said:

FDR's body was a disgusting, crippled representation of how he was so dependent on others and how he created policies to allow so many to become dependent on others through the government.  He started the social safety net, so of course his legs are fair game for ridicule.  

Fairplay - you good with that?  Or is body-shaming OK just for people you don't like?

I'm no Christie fan at all, mainly due to his failure to address education funding issues, but criticism based on physical attributes is a slippery slope at best.  I'm surprised that some of the so-called progressives on this thread think it is OK.  I guess it's only recommended to judge someone based on the content of their character when you like or agree with them.  Pretty disappointing.

So clearly you see the right to body shame as limited to people you disfavor.  You like FDR, so it is not OK. You dislike Christie, so it is OK.  It is a clear double-standard.  And it is definitely body-shaming. You could validly 'bad-man shame' Christie for a whole host of things without mentioning his weight.  In fact, your obsession with his weight portrays you as a very petty person, which actually has the effect of making any valid criticisms less impactful.  You should avoid the temptation, however satisfying it may feel.

ice said:

FDR's body was a disgusting, crippled representation of how he was so dependent on others and how he created policies to allow so many to become dependent on others through the government.  He started the social safety net, so of course his legs are fair game for ridicule.  

Fairplay - you good with that?  Or is body-shaming OK just for people you don't like?

I'm no Christie fan at all, mainly due to his failure to address education funding issues, but criticism based on physical attributes is a slippery slope at best.  I'm surprised that some of the so-called progressives on this thread think it is OK.  I guess it's only recommended to judge someone based on the content of their character when you like or agree with them.  Pretty disappointing.

I thought it was pretty clear why I think Christie is an exception.  It's not because I don't agree with him. I think his physical bulk is an essential part of his persona.  I think it's part of why he's a bully.  You may not agree with my assessment, but it's not arbitrary.  I believe his overbearing loudmouthed windbag style is directly connected to his physical size.

ml1 said:

ice said:

FDR's body was a disgusting, crippled representation of how he was so dependent on others and how he created policies to allow so many to become dependent on others through the government.  He started the social safety net, so of course his legs are fair game for ridicule.  

Fairplay - you good with that?  Or is body-shaming OK just for people you don't like?

I'm no Christie fan at all, mainly due to his failure to address education funding issues, but criticism based on physical attributes is a slippery slope at best.  I'm surprised that some of the so-called progressives on this thread think it is OK.  I guess it's only recommended to judge someone based on the content of their character when you like or agree with them.  Pretty disappointing.

I thought it was pretty clear why I think Christie is an exception.  It's not because I don't agree with him. I think his physical bulk is an essential part of his persona.  I think it's part of why he's a bully.  You may not agree with my assessment, but it's not arbitrary.  I believe his overbearing loudmouthed windbag style is directly connected to his physical size.

So you think he would be a better person, and you would like him more, if he lost weight?  Stop making excuses.

ice said:

ml1 said:

ice said:

FDR's body was a disgusting, crippled representation of how he was so dependent on others and how he created policies to allow so many to become dependent on others through the government.  He started the social safety net, so of course his legs are fair game for ridicule.  

Fairplay - you good with that?  Or is body-shaming OK just for people you don't like?

I'm no Christie fan at all, mainly due to his failure to address education funding issues, but criticism based on physical attributes is a slippery slope at best.  I'm surprised that some of the so-called progressives on this thread think it is OK.  I guess it's only recommended to judge someone based on the content of their character when you like or agree with them.  Pretty disappointing.

I thought it was pretty clear why I think Christie is an exception.  It's not because I don't agree with him. I think his physical bulk is an essential part of his persona.  I think it's part of why he's a bully.  You may not agree with my assessment, but it's not arbitrary.  I believe his overbearing loudmouthed windbag style is directly connected to his physical size.

So you think he would be a better person, and you would like him more, if he lost weight?  Stop making excuses.

Not if he lost weight.  At this point in his life he is who he is.  I think he would be a different person if he had grown up as a person of smaller size. I know people who went to HS with him, and they tell of how he and his cohorts bullied the geeks even back then.  Being a bully is an integral part of who Chris Christie is, and who he has been since he was young. 

Great ML1, so publicly body-shame him for being overweight when he was young. That only could have been because he was a bad person even back then, because we all know overweight people have basic character flaws, right?  He was a bully because he was overweight. Public comments like that will  be really helpful to the many overweight kids of today.

Seriously man, just admit it's wrong and move on.    I don't have much hope for fairplay, but I typically find you to be a reasonable person, even when I disagree with you.

So now you are stereotyping big kids as bullies. Great. Maybe the stereotyping caused him to become what he became?  Just like all the stereotyping of African American kids based on appearance become self fulfilling because it causes others to treat them differently (for example be more punitive with discipline).

I have never posted here before but had to on this one.

I despise Christie and everything he stands for. But, body-shaming reduces the tone of the discourse. IMO it is out of bounds, even for Christie.

And fat kid = bully? In my experience, it was the super-fit jocks and the cute cheerleader girls who were bullies. That's another stereotype though and maybe others had other experiences. "Somatotype" has nothing to do with personality. 

ice said:

Great ML1, so publicly body-shame him for being overweight when he was young. That only could have been because he was a bad person even back then, because we all know overweight people have basic character flaws, right?  He was a bully because he was overweight. Public comments like that will  be really helpful to the many overweight kids of today.

Seriously man, just admit it's wrong and move on.    I don't have much hope for fairplay, but I typically find you to be a reasonable person, even when I disagree with you.

he wasn't obese in HS, but he was a big guy, and from the stories, a bully.

I'm not as rigid as some folks.  I don't think body-shaming people is right.  And fwiw, a lazy "Chris Christie is a fat guy" joke is just dumb.  But there are nuances and exceptions around everything.  Given Trump's public shaming of people he thinks are ugly, I don't have an issue with people posting photos of him looking his worst.

And with regard to Chris Christie, I think political cartoons like this are fair game.  Do you think these cartoons shouldn't have been published?

this is how I think of Christie.  His size is part of the act.

Gilgul said:

So now you are stereotyping big kids as bullies. Great. Maybe the stereotyping caused him to become what he became?  Just like all the stereotyping of African American kids based on appearance become self fulfilling because it causes others to treat them differently (for example be more punitive with discipline).

I'm doing the opposite of stereotyping.  I'm referring to one very specific individual, Chris Christie.  He was said to have been a guy who picked on the smaller guys in HS.  Now he's a big powerful guy who tries to intimidate people. It's the same mentality as governor as when the big jock in HS picks was picking on the scrawny nerd.

there are so many more important things we can despise about Christie. His size isn't even on the radar. He's a terrible human being. He's a selfish, morally devoid person who shows no concern for others. He's abrasive and downright rude. His policies put the wealthy first and show disdain for the poor. Mixing jokes or insults about his appearance diminish that more important conversation.

Nice thread title change. Good job.

conandrob240 said:

there are so many more important things we can despise about Christie. His size isn't even on the radar. He's a terrible human being. He's a selfish, morally devoid person who shows no concern for others. He's abrasive and downright rude. His policies put the wealthy first and show disdain for the poor. Mixing jokes or insults about his appearance diminish that more important conversation.

Yeah ok ok ok. If it's ok for him to trade on insults and cozy  up with the insulter-in-chief, fine, fine fine. He's still a fat slob, a sand tick and a stinkin' dead beached whale. In six months, good riddance to him, his friends and allies. May the ice cream melt all over his (and their) pudgy bully-fingers.

I'm obviously in the minority on this.  Generally, as I've repeated a few times, referring to someone's appearance should't be relevant in criticism.  But there are people who use their physical bulk to intimidate and dominate.  I think Christie is one of those people (others may disagree).  I think the following video is an example of the same thing from Trump.  Is Trump's need to physically dominate physical space relevant to who he is, and how he approaches the world?  I think so.  YMMV.

All people see are the "fat" insults. No one reads the substantive criticism when you " go low". Do you get that?

fairplay said:

conandrob240 said:

there are so many more important things we can despise about Christie. His size isn't even on the radar. He's a terrible human being. He's a selfish, morally devoid person who shows no concern for others. He's abrasive and downright rude. His policies put the wealthy first and show disdain for the poor. Mixing jokes or insults about his appearance diminish that more important conversation.

Yeah ok ok ok. If it's ok for him to trade on insults and cozy  up with the insulter-in-chief, fine, fine fine. He's still a fat slob, a sand tick and a stinkin' dead beached whale. In six months, good riddance to him, his friends and allies. May the ice cream melt all over his (and their) pudgy bully-fingers.

I agree with gilgul here. I despise Christie but I don't make fat jokes. He is a pig, an awful insensitive blowhard. But to me, making fat jokes about Christie would be like making Black jokes about Ben Carson. I despise him, too but I was brought up better. 

His obesity is a good metaphor for his personality. 

When he ran for re-election, he wanted all the votes for himself. 

The beaches were going to be closed to the public, but he wanted them open for himself. 

Is he going to be that much different at the dinner table?

ml1 said:

Gilgul said:

So now you are stereotyping big kids as bullies. Great. Maybe the stereotyping caused him to become what he became?  Just like all the stereotyping of African American kids based on appearance become self fulfilling because it causes others to treat them differently (for example be more punitive with discipline).

I'm doing the opposite of stereotyping.  I'm referring to one very specific individual, Chris Christie.  He was said to have been a guy who picked on the smaller guys in HS.  Now he's a big powerful guy who tries to intimidate people. It's the same mentality as governor as when the big jock in HS picks was picking on the scrawny nerd.

Above you said, "I think his physical bulk is an essential part of his persona.  I think it's part of why he's a bully."

That is NOT the opposite of stereotyping.

ice said:

ml1 said:

Gilgul said:

So now you are stereotyping big kids as bullies. Great. Maybe the stereotyping caused him to become what he became?  Just like all the stereotyping of African American kids based on appearance become self fulfilling because it causes others to treat them differently (for example be more punitive with discipline).

I'm doing the opposite of stereotyping.  I'm referring to one very specific individual, Chris Christie.  He was said to have been a guy who picked on the smaller guys in HS.  Now he's a big powerful guy who tries to intimidate people. It's the same mentality as governor as when the big jock in HS picks was picking on the scrawny nerd.

Above you said, "I think his physical bulk is an essential part of his persona.  I think it's part of why he's a bully."

  That is NOT the opposite of stereotyping.

Absolutely it is the opposite. Stereotyping would be saying ALL big guys are like that. I'm saying one guy specifically is like that.

Would you have thought it beyond the pale to say Christie was trying to throw his weight around during the recent budget impasse?

But why would you assume that a large person is a bully because he is large? He is a bully because he is a bully. Not because he is large.

ml1 said:

ice said:

ml1 said:

Gilgul said:

So now you are stereotyping big kids as bullies. Great. Maybe the stereotyping caused him to become what he became?  Just like all the stereotyping of African American kids based on appearance become self fulfilling because it causes others to treat them differently (for example be more punitive with discipline).

I'm doing the opposite of stereotyping.  I'm referring to one very specific individual, Chris Christie.  He was said to have been a guy who picked on the smaller guys in HS.  Now he's a big powerful guy who tries to intimidate people. It's the same mentality as governor as when the big jock in HS picks was picking on the scrawny nerd.

Above you said, "I think his physical bulk is an essential part of his persona.  I think it's part of why he's a bully."

  That is NOT the opposite of stereotyping.

Absolutely it is the opposite. Stereotyping would be saying ALL big guys are like that. I'm saying one guy specifically is like that.

Would you have thought it beyond the pale to say Christie was trying to throw his weight around during the recent budget impasse?

OK, so when someone says an individual guy (not a group!) does poorly in school because he is black, will that also be the opposite of stereotyping?  You can claim 'nuance' all you like, but you just keep digging yourself deeper.

ice said:

OK, so when someone says an individual guy (not a group!) does poorly in school because he is black, will that also be the opposite of stereotyping?  You can claim 'nuance' all you like, but you just keep digging yourself deeper.

That's a false comparison. 

It's my opinion that Christie uses his physical size and loud voice to dominate and intimidate. Did you watch the video? Have you ever seen video of his town halls?

I'm not "digging" because I'm not trying to escape anything. I think my point is entirely reasonable. You don't have to agree with it. 

But I don't think a little guy standing at a podium yelling at people would have the same effect as Christie has had. And I think he knows that and uses it to his advantage.