chris christie

Impedimenta wrote:good speech, especially considering how bad the rest of the speeches were. It was different also because he actually never spoke about either of the candidates much but more about the issues. I liked that he asked if the people wanted to appoint someone who is loved or respected. although, with his style, it should be someone who is "feared" :-)

He is someone who is brutally honest, not the kind of politics that either obama or romney is used to. in comparison, ann romney's speech came across as staged.

Although he endorsed romney, one could see the tension on romney's speech, given their recent controversy over his resignation intention.

atcg wrote:Ann Romney - found her speech fairly lame and couldn't help but contrast the reality of their wealth versus the words that they had it rough. Her biggest challenge seems to have been which one of the several doctors to call at midnight and figuring out who is likely to return the call soonest. Quite a far cry from the 95%.

Chris Christie - I expected a ball-buster but he was more kabuki theater. I estimate his IQ at 110 tops. Thought keynoting would mean more gravitas which he certainly had in the physical sense. He studiously avoided Romney-mentions, till he absolutely had to.

Nikki Haley - What a disappointment!!! Expected a much stronger showing.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Impedimenta wrote:good speech, especially considering how bad the rest of the speeches were. It was different also because he actually never spoke about either of the candidates much but more about the issues. I liked that he asked if the people wanted to appoint someone who is loved or respected. although, with his style, it should be someone who is "feared" :-)

He is someone who is brutally honest, not the kind of politics that either obama or romney is used to. in comparison, ann romney's speech came across as staged.

Although he endorsed romney, one could see the tension on romney's speech, given their recent controversy over his resignation intention.

What kind of a name is Chris Christie.... He should either decide to be Chris or ChristIE...

atcg wrote:Ann Romney - found her speech fairly lame and couldn't help but contrast the reality of their wealth versus the words that they had it rough. Her biggest challenge seems to have been which one of the several doctors to call at midnight and figuring out who is likely to return the call soonest. Quite a far cry from the 95%.

Chris Christie - I expected a ball-buster but he was more kabuki theater. I estimate his IQ at 110 tops. Thought keynoting would mean more gravitas which he certainly had in the physical sense. He studiously avoided Romney-mentions, till he absolutely had to.

Nikki Haley - What a disappointment!!! Expected a much stronger showing.

Impedimenta wrote:good speech, especially considering how bad the rest of the speeches were. It was different also because he actually never spoke about either of the candidates much but more about the issues. I liked that he asked if the people wanted to appoint someone who is loved or respected. although, with his style, it should be someone who is "feared" :-)

He is someone who is brutally honest, not the kind of politics that either obama or romney is used to. in comparison, ann romney's speech came across as staged.

Although he endorsed romney, one could see the tension on romney's speech, given their recent controversy over his resignation intention.

truthbetold wrote:Looks like ryan is getting ready to speak at 10:30? Why so late? Yhat is 7:30 on the wezt coast? None of the western states are in contention. Other than idaho and alaska, who cares? All states in contention would have appreciated a 9 or 9:30 estern speech. Not a bright idea.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:chris christie -- perturbing gravitational potential fields in and around new joisey since 1962.

Impedimenta wrote: I liked that he asked if the people wanted to appoint someone who is loved or respected. although, with his style, it should be someone who is "feared" :-)

panini press wrote:

Impedimenta wrote: I liked that he asked if the people wanted to appoint someone who is loved or respected. although, with his style, it should be someone who is "feared" :-)

Machiavelli asked the same question... Is it better for a ruler to be loved or feared. His answer was the same as Christie's: to be feared. The straight talker didn't want to openly say it is better to be feared, so he changed the word to respected. The difference, of course, is that Machiavelli was talking about a despot prince, not a democratic leader who is accountable to the people.

Hellsangel wrote:

panini press wrote:

Impedimenta wrote: I liked that he asked if the people wanted to appoint someone who is loved or respected. although, with his style, it should be someone who is "feared" :-)

Machiavelli asked the same question... Is it better for a ruler to be loved or feared. His answer was the same as Christie's: to be feared. The straight talker didn't want to openly say it is better to be feared, so he changed the word to respected. The difference, of course, is that Machiavelli was talking about a despot prince, not a democratic leader who is accountable to the people.

Wonder what would the liberals say about this when it came to GWB! After all he was the guy more people would rather have a beer with.

panini press wrote:That was before he won (thanks to the Supreme Court) the election. Once in office he became one of the most unpopular presidents ever, to the point that McCain was running against him last time around.

panini press wrote:

Impedimenta wrote: I liked that he asked if the people wanted to appoint someone who is loved or respected. although, with his style, it should be someone who is "feared" :-)

Machiavelli asked the same question... Is it better for a ruler to be loved or feared. His answer was the same as Christie's: to be feared. The straight talker didn't want to openly say it is better to be feared, so he changed the word to respected. The difference, of course, is that Machiavelli was talking about a despot prince, not a democratic leader who is accountable to the people.

Rashmun wrote:

panini press wrote:

Impedimenta wrote: I liked that he asked if the people wanted to appoint someone who is loved or respected. although, with his style, it should be someone who is "feared" :-)

Machiavelli asked the same question... Is it better for a ruler to be loved or feared. His answer was the same as Christie's: to be feared. The straight talker didn't want to openly say it is better to be feared, so he changed the word to respected. The difference, of course, is that Machiavelli was talking about a despot prince, not a democratic leader who is accountable to the people.

It is true that Machiavelli says that it is better for a ruler to be feared than to be loved, but he adds an important caveat: it is that the ruler should not be hated.
On another note, Frederick the Great, Emperor of Prussia, writes in his 'Anti-Machiavelli' that it is better for a ruler to be loved than to be feared.
I do not think Christie had Machiavelli in mind when he made his statement.

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

panini press wrote:

Impedimenta wrote: I liked that he asked if the people wanted to appoint someone who is loved or respected. although, with his style, it should be someone who is "feared" :-)

Machiavelli asked the same question... Is it better for a ruler to be loved or feared. His answer was the same as Christie's: to be feared. The straight talker didn't want to openly say it is better to be feared, so he changed the word to respected. The difference, of course, is that Machiavelli was talking about a despot prince, not a democratic leader who is accountable to the people.

It is true that Machiavelli says that it is better for a ruler to be feared than to be loved, but he adds an important caveat: it is that the ruler should not be hated.
On another note, Frederick the Great, Emperor of Prussia, writes in his 'Anti-Machiavelli' that it is better for a ruler to be loved than to be feared.
I do not think Christie had Machiavelli in mind when he made his statement.

Anti-Machiavel is an 18th century essay by Frederick the Great, King of Prussia and patron of Voltaire, consisting of a chapter-by-chapter rebuttal of The Prince, the 16th century book by Niccolò Machiavelli, and Machiavellianism in general. It was first published in September 1740, a few months after Frederick became king.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Machiavel

artood2 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

panini press wrote:

Impedimenta wrote: I liked that he asked if the people wanted to appoint someone who is loved or respected. although, with his style, it should be someone who is "feared" :-)

Machiavelli asked the same question... Is it better for a ruler to be loved or feared. His answer was the same as Christie's: to be feared. The straight talker didn't want to openly say it is better to be feared, so he changed the word to respected. The difference, of course, is that Machiavelli was talking about a despot prince, not a democratic leader who is accountable to the people.

It is true that Machiavelli says that it is better for a ruler to be feared than to be loved, but he adds an important caveat: it is that the ruler should not be hated.
On another note, Frederick the Great, Emperor of Prussia, writes in his 'Anti-Machiavelli' that it is better for a ruler to be loved than to be feared.
I do not think Christie had Machiavelli in mind when he made his statement.

Anti-Machiavel is an 18th century essay by Frederick the Great, King of Prussia and patron of Voltaire, consisting of a chapter-by-chapter rebuttal of The Prince, the 16th century book by Niccolò Machiavelli, and Machiavellianism in general. It was first published in September 1740, a few months after Frederick became king.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Machiavel

Was Machiavelli talking in the context of a democracy?

artood2 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

panini press wrote:

Impedimenta wrote: I liked that he asked if the people wanted to appoint someone who is loved or respected. although, with his style, it should be someone who is "feared" :-)

Machiavelli asked the same question... Is it better for a ruler to be loved or feared. His answer was the same as Christie's: to be feared. The straight talker didn't want to openly say it is better to be feared, so he changed the word to respected. The difference, of course, is that Machiavelli was talking about a despot prince, not a democratic leader who is accountable to the people.

It is true that Machiavelli says that it is better for a ruler to be feared than to be loved, but he adds an important caveat: it is that the ruler should not be hated.
On another note, Frederick the Great, Emperor of Prussia, writes in his 'Anti-Machiavelli' that it is better for a ruler to be loved than to be feared.
I do not think Christie had Machiavelli in mind when he made his statement.

Anti-Machiavel is an 18th century essay by Frederick the Great, King of Prussia and patron of Voltaire, consisting of a chapter-by-chapter rebuttal of The Prince, the 16th century book by Niccolò Machiavelli, and Machiavellianism in general. It was first published in September 1740, a few months after Frederick became king.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Machiavel

Was Machiavelli talking in the context of a democracy?

Rashmun wrote:

artood2 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

panini press wrote:

Machiavelli asked the same question... Is it better for a ruler to be loved or feared. His answer was the same as Christie's: to be feared. The straight talker didn't want to openly say it is better to be feared, so he changed the word to respected. The difference, of course, is that Machiavelli was talking about a despot prince, not a democratic leader who is accountable to the people.

It is true that Machiavelli says that it is better for a ruler to be feared than to be loved, but he adds an important caveat: it is that the ruler should not be hated.
On another note, Frederick the Great, Emperor of Prussia, writes in his 'Anti-Machiavelli' that it is better for a ruler to be loved than to be feared.
I do not think Christie had Machiavelli in mind when he made his statement.

Anti-Machiavel is an 18th century essay by Frederick the Great, King of Prussia and patron of Voltaire, consisting of a chapter-by-chapter rebuttal of The Prince, the 16th century book by Niccolò Machiavelli, and Machiavellianism in general. It was first published in September 1740, a few months after Frederick became king.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Machiavel

Was Machiavelli talking in the context of a democracy?

in my opinion a dullard will dismiss the views of Machiavelli and Frederick the Great (as expressed in the books 'The Prince' and 'Anti-Machiavel') on the ground that they did not have democracy in mind when they wrote these political books and hence the views expressed in these books have no relevance today. In contrast the intelligent observer will recognize that the views of Machiavelli and Frederick the Great apply not only to kings but also have relevance for analyzing anyone with executive power.

Consider for instance that when Sun Tzu wrote his 'Art of War' more than two thousand years ago there were no tanks and no artillery. And yet according the famous British military historian Basill Lidell Hart, Sun Tzu's book has 'eternal freshness' and that it should continue to be studied by all scholars on the subject of military strategy and tactics.

artood2 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

artood2 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

It is true that Machiavelli says that it is better for a ruler to be feared than to be loved, but he adds an important caveat: it is that the ruler should not be hated.
On another note, Frederick the Great, Emperor of Prussia, writes in his 'Anti-Machiavelli' that it is better for a ruler to be loved than to be feared.
I do not think Christie had Machiavelli in mind when he made his statement.

Anti-Machiavel is an 18th century essay by Frederick the Great, King of Prussia and patron of Voltaire, consisting of a chapter-by-chapter rebuttal of The Prince, the 16th century book by Niccolò Machiavelli, and Machiavellianism in general. It was first published in September 1740, a few months after Frederick became king.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Machiavel

Was Machiavelli talking in the context of a democracy?

in my opinion a dullard will dismiss the views of Machiavelli and Frederick the Great (as expressed in the books 'The Prince' and 'Anti-Machiavel') on the ground that they did not have democracy in mind when they wrote these political books and hence the views expressed in these books have no relevance today. In contrast the intelligent observer will recognize that the views of Machiavelli and Frederick the Great apply not only to kings but also have relevance for analyzing anyone with executive power.

Consider for instance that when Sun Tzu wrote his 'Art of War' more than two thousand years ago there were no tanks and no artillery. And yet according the famous British military historian Basill Lidell Hart, Sun Tzu's book has 'eternal freshness' and that it should continue to be studied by all scholars on the subject of military strategy and tactics.

IMO, in a truly functional democracy a leader would need to be elected and is not entitled to be a ruler. He cannot win on the basis of fear.



But again there are dullards and intelligent observers...

Rashmun wrote:

artood2 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

artood2 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Anti-Machiavel is an 18th century essay by Frederick the Great, King of Prussia and patron of Voltaire, consisting of a chapter-by-chapter rebuttal of The Prince, the 16th century book by Niccolò Machiavelli, and Machiavellianism in general. It was first published in September 1740, a few months after Frederick became king.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Machiavel

Was Machiavelli talking in the context of a democracy?

in my opinion a dullard will dismiss the views of Machiavelli and Frederick the Great (as expressed in the books 'The Prince' and 'Anti-Machiavel') on the ground that they did not have democracy in mind when they wrote these political books and hence the views expressed in these books have no relevance today. In contrast the intelligent observer will recognize that the views of Machiavelli and Frederick the Great apply not only to kings but also have relevance for analyzing anyone with executive power.

Consider for instance that when Sun Tzu wrote his 'Art of War' more than two thousand years ago there were no tanks and no artillery. And yet according the famous British military historian Basill Lidell Hart, Sun Tzu's book has 'eternal freshness' and that it should continue to be studied by all scholars on the subject of military strategy and tactics.

IMO, in a truly functional democracy a leader would need to be elected and is not entitled to be a ruler. He cannot win on the basis of fear.



But again there are dullards and intelligent observers...

A certain amount of fear in the populace is not a bad thing; for instance, people must have some fear that if they carry out criminal activities or indulge in wrongdoing they will be meted out appropriate punishment in accordance with the principles of justice. Machiavelli has qualified his statement by saying that a ruler must ensure that he does not arouse hatred amongst the ruled. This is only possible if the ruler is fair and just and does not mete out punishments in a whimsical manner.

artood2 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

artood2 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

artood2 wrote:

Was Machiavelli talking in the context of a democracy?

in my opinion a dullard will dismiss the views of Machiavelli and Frederick the Great (as expressed in the books 'The Prince' and 'Anti-Machiavel') on the ground that they did not have democracy in mind when they wrote these political books and hence the views expressed in these books have no relevance today. In contrast the intelligent observer will recognize that the views of Machiavelli and Frederick the Great apply not only to kings but also have relevance for analyzing anyone with executive power.

Consider for instance that when Sun Tzu wrote his 'Art of War' more than two thousand years ago there were no tanks and no artillery. And yet according the famous British military historian Basill Lidell Hart, Sun Tzu's book has 'eternal freshness' and that it should continue to be studied by all scholars on the subject of military strategy and tactics.

IMO, in a truly functional democracy a leader would need to be elected and is not entitled to be a ruler. He cannot win on the basis of fear.



But again there are dullards and intelligent observers...

A certain amount of fear in the populace is not a bad thing; for instance, people must have some fear that if they carry out criminal activities or indulge in wrongdoing they will be meted out appropriate punishment in accordance with the principles of justice. Machiavelli has qualified his statement by saying that a ruler must ensure that he does not arouse hatred amongst the ruled. This is only possible if the ruler is fair and just and does not mete out punishments in a whimsical manner.

Having "a certain amount of fear" is not the same as fearing the ruler. in a democracy, judgements are meted out by the judiciary and not the executive.

Rashmun wrote:

artood2 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

artood2 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

in my opinion a dullard will dismiss the views of Machiavelli and Frederick the Great (as expressed in the books 'The Prince' and 'Anti-Machiavel') on the ground that they did not have democracy in mind when they wrote these political books and hence the views expressed in these books have no relevance today. In contrast the intelligent observer will recognize that the views of Machiavelli and Frederick the Great apply not only to kings but also have relevance for analyzing anyone with executive power.

Consider for instance that when Sun Tzu wrote his 'Art of War' more than two thousand years ago there were no tanks and no artillery. And yet according the famous British military historian Basill Lidell Hart, Sun Tzu's book has 'eternal freshness' and that it should continue to be studied by all scholars on the subject of military strategy and tactics.

IMO, in a truly functional democracy a leader would need to be elected and is not entitled to be a ruler. He cannot win on the basis of fear.



But again there are dullards and intelligent observers...

A certain amount of fear in the populace is not a bad thing; for instance, people must have some fear that if they carry out criminal activities or indulge in wrongdoing they will be meted out appropriate punishment in accordance with the principles of justice. Machiavelli has qualified his statement by saying that a ruler must ensure that he does not arouse hatred amongst the ruled. This is only possible if the ruler is fair and just and does not mete out punishments in a whimsical manner.

Having "a certain amount of fear" is not the same as fearing the ruler. in a democracy, judgements are meted out by the judiciary and not the executive.

Machiavelli's statement about 'it is better to be feared than to be loved provided one is not hated' applies in modern times not just to the executive but also to the judiciary.

Rashmun wrote:

artood2 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

artood2 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

in my opinion a dullard will dismiss the views of Machiavelli and Frederick the Great (as expressed in the books 'The Prince' and 'Anti-Machiavel') on the ground that they did not have democracy in mind when they wrote these political books and hence the views expressed in these books have no relevance today. In contrast the intelligent observer will recognize that the views of Machiavelli and Frederick the Great apply not only to kings but also have relevance for analyzing anyone with executive power.

Consider for instance that when Sun Tzu wrote his 'Art of War' more than two thousand years ago there were no tanks and no artillery. And yet according the famous British military historian Basill Lidell Hart, Sun Tzu's book has 'eternal freshness' and that it should continue to be studied by all scholars on the subject of military strategy and tactics.

IMO, in a truly functional democracy a leader would need to be elected and is not entitled to be a ruler. He cannot win on the basis of fear.



But again there are dullards and intelligent observers...

A certain amount of fear in the populace is not a bad thing; for instance, people must have some fear that if they carry out criminal activities or indulge in wrongdoing they will be meted out appropriate punishment in accordance with the principles of justice. Machiavelli has qualified his statement by saying that a ruler must ensure that he does not arouse hatred amongst the ruled. This is only possible if the ruler is fair and just and does not mete out punishments in a whimsical manner.

Having "a certain amount of fear" is not the same as fearing the ruler. in a democracy, judgements are meted out by the judiciary and not the executive.

Machiavelli's statement about 'it is better to be feared than to be loved provided one is not hated' applies in modern times not just to the executive but also to the judiciary.

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

artood2 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

artood2 wrote:

IMO, in a truly functional democracy a leader would need to be elected and is not entitled to be a ruler. He cannot win on the basis of fear.



But again there are dullards and intelligent observers...

A certain amount of fear in the populace is not a bad thing; for instance, people must have some fear that if they carry out criminal activities or indulge in wrongdoing they will be meted out appropriate punishment in accordance with the principles of justice. Machiavelli has qualified his statement by saying that a ruler must ensure that he does not arouse hatred amongst the ruled. This is only possible if the ruler is fair and just and does not mete out punishments in a whimsical manner.

Having "a certain amount of fear" is not the same as fearing the ruler. in a democracy, judgements are meted out by the judiciary and not the executive.

Machiavelli's statement about 'it is better to be feared than to be loved provided one is not hated' applies in modern times not just to the executive but also to the judiciary.

could it be that Indira Gandhi exemplified Machiavelli's statement (leaving aside the emergency years)?

artood2 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

artood2 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

A certain amount of fear in the populace is not a bad thing; for instance, people must have some fear that if they carry out criminal activities or indulge in wrongdoing they will be meted out appropriate punishment in accordance with the principles of justice. Machiavelli has qualified his statement by saying that a ruler must ensure that he does not arouse hatred amongst the ruled. This is only possible if the ruler is fair and just and does not mete out punishments in a whimsical manner.

Having "a certain amount of fear" is not the same as fearing the ruler. in a democracy, judgements are meted out by the judiciary and not the executive.

Machiavelli's statement about 'it is better to be feared than to be loved provided one is not hated' applies in modern times not just to the executive but also to the judiciary.

could it be that Indira Gandhi exemplified Machiavelli's statement (leaving aside the emergency years)?

that is actually a very good example. As soon as people started fearing Indira-Sanjay she was promptly booted out of power.

Rashmun wrote:

artood2 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

artood2 wrote:

Having "a certain amount of fear" is not the same as fearing the ruler. in a democracy, judgements are meted out by the judiciary and not the executive.

Machiavelli's statement about 'it is better to be feared than to be loved provided one is not hated' applies in modern times not just to the executive but also to the judiciary.

could it be that Indira Gandhi exemplified Machiavelli's statement (leaving aside the emergency years)?

that is actually a very good example. As soon as people started fearing Indira-Sanjay she was promptly booted out of power.

and subsequently she was voted back to power. Did the people fall in love with her after initially being in fear of her?

artood2 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

artood2 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Machiavelli's statement about 'it is better to be feared than to be loved provided one is not hated' applies in modern times not just to the executive but also to the judiciary.

could it be that Indira Gandhi exemplified Machiavelli's statement (leaving aside the emergency years)?

that is actually a very good example. As soon as people started fearing Indira-Sanjay she was promptly booted out of power.

and subsequently she was voted back to power. Did the people fall in love with her after initially being in fear of her?

or were they still in fear when they re-elected her?

Rashmun wrote:

artood2 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

artood2 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

could it be that Indira Gandhi exemplified Machiavelli's statement (leaving aside the emergency years)?

that is actually a very good example. As soon as people started fearing Indira-Sanjay she was promptly booted out of power.

and subsequently she was voted back to power. Did the people fall in love with her after initially being in fear of her?

or were they still in fear when they re-elected her?

if they were still in fear of her they would not have re-elected her as per your earlier statement. Does this mean that that they fell in love with her?