Jump to content
Golf battery

Ciatterelli singh debate tonight. Now!!

Recommended Posts

I liked Singh better! Jack Ciatterelli made it clear he would allow people with dangerous occupations to get a carry permit!  He will not remove justifiable need for us plain folks.  He is a career politician and a RINO at best!

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually . . . What Jack has said repeatedly is that if the legislature is held by Democrats he would push for incremental changes but if Republicans are given control EVERYTHING IS ON THE TABLE . . . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JohnnyB said:

I liked Singh better! Jack Ciatterelli made it clear he would allow people with dangerous occupations to get a carry permit!  He will not remove justifiable need for us plain folks.  He is a career politician and a RINO at best!

Exactly! i said the same previously....

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JohnnyB said:

I liked Singh better! Jack Ciatterelli made it clear he would allow people with dangerous occupations to get a carry permit!  He will not remove justifiable need for us plain folks.  He is a career politician and a RINO at best!

All you need to know about him right there. 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, EdF said:

Actually . . . What Jack has said repeatedly is that if the legislature is held by Democrats he would push for incremental changes but if Republicans are given control EVERYTHING IS ON THE TABLE . . . 

which, if you think about it is just political doublespeak.  He isn’t stating his position on anything but instead saying his positions depend on what he can get through the legislature. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, voyager9 said:

which, if you think about it is just political doublespeak.  He isn’t stating his position on anything but instead saying his positions depend on what he can get through the legislature. 

Absolutely, imagine if he just told people what he believed in, and what his vision as a politician is. Shouldn't matter what the legislator looks like, or is capable of. That's something you worry about once you're elected. 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2021 at 7:10 AM, voyager9 said:

He isn’t stating his position on anything but instead saying his positions depend on what he can get through the legislature. 

No . . . It's a matter of recognizing possibilities.  It's admitting that without the legislature, what he wants is irrelevant.  "Everything is on the table" is he gets the legislature.  

But, hear what you want . . . Vote for Singh . . . He'll run a shitty campaign while he makes you promises that he can't keep and he'll either lose to Murphy or he'll win without gaining a single seat in the legislature and you won't get shit out it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, EdF said:

No . . . It's a matter of recognizing possibilities.  It's admitting that without the legislature, what he wants is irrelevant. 

That may be true but the dems don't operate that way.

Whether they are in or out of power leftists keep pushing their agenda every way possible.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Bomber said:

That may be true but the dems don't operate that way.

Whether they are in or out of power leftists keep pushing their agenda every way possible.

Yep . . . But, they back people who can win and make progress.  The only way to stop them is to WIN.  There are no moral victories.  You thing Singh or Rizzo is the guy to restore your rights?  They have to win in order to do it.  Keep supporting losers and you will keep getting deeper in the whole.

Notice how all of the Leftists think they like Socialism?  See how they don't select the Socialist, Bernie Sanders, to be their flag bearer?  They know that he can't win so they put up a candidate who can.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, EdF said:

 The only way to stop them is to WIN.  There are no moral victories.  You thing Singh or Rizzo is the guy to restore your rights?  They have to win in order to do it.  Keep supporting losers and you will keep getting deeper in the whole.

I haven't decided yet, but I've heard those same arguments for years. 

As for Bernie Sanders the 2016 election probably would've been much closer if he was the Dem nominee. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bomber said:

As for Bernie Sanders the 2016 election probably would've been much closer if he was the Dem nominee. 

A small code change would have given Sanders the same result.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EdF said:

No . . . It's a matter of recognizing possibilities.  It's admitting that without the legislature, what he wants is irrelevant.  "Everything is on the table" is he gets the legislature. 

When campaigning I want to hear what the candidate stands for. What they support.  “Whatever the legislature allows” doesn’t tell me anything about his platform.  Neither does everything is on the table”.  It’s a completely throwaway statement meant to appease gun owners while not committing to anything just in case he gets past the primary.  
The only thing it tells me is he’s a politician.  Which isn’t necessarily a good thing.  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

When campaigning I want to hear what the candidate stands for. What they support.  “Whatever the legislature allows” doesn’t tell me anything about his platform.  Neither does everything is on the table”.  It’s a completely throwaway statement meant to appease gun owners while not committing to anything just in case he gets past the primary.  
The only thing it tells me is he’s a politician.  Which isn’t necessarily a good thing.  

For Christ's sake!  He didn't say "whatever the legislature allows" . . . He didn't say, "Everything is on the table if the legislature pushes it on me . . . "  He talked about what is fucking possible.  Without the legislature, he probably can't do shit.  Why should he say otherwise?  Do you want him to pound the table in favor of the Second Amendment and then not be able to do anything because of opposition in the legislature?  Listen to him . . . He's tell you that, even as governor, he will be virtually powerless on the issue with gains in the legislature.  The same is true about Singh and Rizzo but they won't tell you that until AFTER they are elected. 

THAT is what politicians do.   They make promises that they know they can't keep and they hope that you don't notice that they will not be able to keep them.

  • Agree 1
  • FacePalm 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, EdF said:

THAT is what politicians do.   They make promises that they know they can't keep and they hope that you don't notice that they will not be able to keep them.

So you're saying there's no point in voting for any of them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, EdF said:

No!  Read it in context . . . 

I did. You basically said Singh and Rizzo told more obvious lies than Ciatterelli. Ciatterelli is an experienced politician. I would expect him to be a smoother liar.

You also said that that is what politicians do. Is Ciatterelli not a politician?

This reminds me of two guys in the office. One is Trump all the way and the other is a staunch Democrat. They spend hours going back and forth arguing that the other guy's favored dirtbag politician is worse than his own favored dirtbag politician. Neither seem to care that both politicians are dirtbags.

I think it's time for some fresh people to get voted in. It matters not if the RINO Ciatterelli is capable of winning on a Republican ticket. He only says he's a Republican. Remember, politicians lie - that's what they do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, voyager9 said:

When campaigning I want to hear what the candidate stands for. What they support.  “Whatever the legislature allows” doesn’t tell me anything about his platform.  Neither does everything is on the table”.  It’s a completely throwaway statement meant to appease gun owners while not committing to anything just in case he gets past the primary.  
The only thing it tells me is he’s a politician.  Which isn’t necessarily a good thing.  

 

1 hour ago, EdF said:

For Christ's sake!  He didn't say "whatever the legislature allows" . . . He didn't say, "Everything is on the table if the legislature pushes it on me . . . "  He talked about what is fucking possible.  Without the legislature, he probably can't do shit.  Why should he say otherwise?  Do you want him to pound the table in favor of the Second Amendment and then not be able to do anything because of opposition in the legislature?  Listen to him . . . He's tell you that, even as governor, he will be virtually powerless on the issue with gains in the legislature.  The same is true about Singh and Rizzo but they won't tell you that until AFTER they are elected. 

THAT is what politicians do.   They make promises that they know they can't keep and they hope that you don't notice that they will not be able to keep them.

 

47 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

I did. You basically said Singh and Rizzo told more obvious lies than Ciatterelli. Ciatterelli is an experienced politician. I would expect him to be a smoother liar.

You also said that that is what politicians do. Is Ciatterelli not a politician?

This reminds me of two guys in the office. One is Trump all the way and the other is a staunch Democrat. They spend hours going back and forth arguing that the other guy's favored dirtbag politician is worse than his own favored dirtbag politician. Neither seem to care that both politicians are dirtbags.

I think it's time for some fresh people to get voted in. It matters not if the RINO Ciatterelli is capable of winning on a Republican ticket. He only says he's a Republican. Remember, politicians lie - that's what they do.

You’re all three right. 
 

Unfortunately, nature of the beast is for a politician to be full of shit. Pretty much can’t get away with that. 
 

Personally, I prefer an outsider over a seasoned politician. I want someone with fresh eyes and ideas, and problem solving skills. 
 

I was hoping that Singh was that guy, but his recent transgressions have made me rethink him. So...I have some re-evaluation to do. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EdF said:

Without the legislature, he probably can't do shit.  Why should he say otherwise?  Do you want him to pound the table in favor of the Second Amendment and then not be able to do anything because of opposition in the legislature?

There is a difference between him saying “This is what I believe, but…everyone needs to also flip the legislature” and “I believe in whatever I can get through the legislature”.   We are not idiots. 
We understand how the government works and that the governor can’t unilaterally pass laws.  But knowing how he stands on the issues is important and tells us he has a vision.  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still want Singh!  Ciatterelli's wife is very fast with a foul mouth and Singh was accused of living with his parents so I think that somewhat validated a question to Ciatterelli's wife about adult children living in his home.

I don't agree with how his manager went after her but he did manage to point out that she is not exactly high class with her foul mouth!

Politics is a dirty game in the PRNJ and I am glad to see that Singh's crew  is willing to fight!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that Hirsh Singh lives or does not live with his parents is entirely irrelevant. What's important is that hard working, good law abiding people have effective self protection outside the home in this state. It's getting crazy out here on the roads! his living arrangement be damned!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JohnnyB said:

I still want Singh!  Ciatterelli's wife is very fast with a foul mouth and Singh was accused of living with his parents so I think that somewhat validated a question to Ciatterelli's wife about adult children living in his home.

I don't agree with how his manager went after her but he did manage to point out that she is not exactly high class with her foul mouth!

Politics is a dirty game in the PRNJ and I am glad to see that Singh's crew  is willing to fight!

The article was clearly biased against Singh with its emotionally charged words, even though both sides dipped to embarrasing lows.  It is hard to tell if these candidates realize their actions appear to be helping to keep New Jersey a one party state.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2021 at 9:01 PM, JohnnyB said:

I still want Singh!  Ciatterelli's wife is very fast with a foul mouth

Penna didn't post the beginning of the video which included a profanity laced attack on the Ciattarelli family.   Yes, Singh has been ripped for living at home.  He's the candidate.  The adult Ciattarelli children "living at home" are an active duty member of the Army getting ready to deploy and college student living at college, both of whom, as is common, have kept their voter registration at their parents home.  Melinda Ciattarelli didn't attack the Singh family.  She didn't attack Singh's parents.  She attack Singh and, moreso, his campaign manager.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2021 at 4:45 PM, EdF said:

For Christ's sake!  He didn't say "whatever the legislature allows" . . . He didn't say, "Everything is on the table if the legislature pushes it on me . . . "  He talked about what is fucking possible.  Without the legislature, he probably can't do shit.  Why should he say otherwise?  Do you want him to pound the table in favor of the Second Amendment and then not be able to do anything because of opposition in the legislature?  Listen to him . . . He's tell you that, even as governor, he will be virtually powerless on the issue with gains in the legislature.  The same is true about Singh and Rizzo but they won't tell you that until AFTER they are elected. 

THAT is what politicians do.   They make promises that they know they can't keep and they hope that you don't notice that they will not be able to keep them.

Jack hasn't run a successful campaign in years, he lost last time around, and hadn't done shit to promote the legislative odds In repubs favor. 

The fuck are we pretending here that Jack is some candidate that can beat Murphy and help gain seats in the assembly? This is fucking nonsense. He couldn't even beat Christie's pal Kim... what a fucking shame.

Jack can talk about what is possible all day long... I still won't vote for him unless he stands up and tells us what his deep rooted values are on issues, and that he would fight for those values regardless of what's possible. 

All he's done so far is paid lip service so as to avoid hot issues so he doesn't have to take a hard stance. He's admitted that he gives little thought to Americans ability to defend themselves, does he actually believe that? Or does he think NJ won't go for it? I'm not gonna sit here and try to figure out which one it is, he clearly lacks a spine.

It's a joke for anyone to go after Singh over who's favored to win, Jack did absolutely horrible in the last Primary and it wasn't some surprise either.. they guy doesn't stand out on any issues and a lot of people still have no idea who he is. Kinda just sounds like another Christ Chrisie... if you don't make to big a splash people.will just vote.for him because they all fucking hate beaver face.

 

Democrats push their nonsense all the time when they know it's got no chance of going anywhere.. yet they inch closer to their objectives all the time. JACK is a lack luster candidate and he doesn't promote change, he promotes what's possible. That will win the hearts of no one, and has zero effect of exciting the base... 

 

AOC, the youngest woman to hold office didn't win by telling people what was possible, she had a vision people believed in... and she fights for it everyday and inches closer to it everyday...  she doesn't back down when the odds aren't in her favor... she gets fucking louder!!!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ciattarelli has won seven races and lost one.  Singh is now what?  0-5?  Ciattarelli's lone loss was to the sitting Lieutenant Governor.  

Singh financed his way into the debate by loaning his campaign $418,000 of the $490,000 that was needed.  Rizzo claims to have raised the money but filed insufficient paperwork for the debate and filed it two days late.   

Ciattarelli has already been working with candidates in all 40 legislative districts.  We never heard a word from Singh or Rizzo.  

For all of vocal support they received, Singh and Rizzo together got fewer votes than Ciattarelli.  

Go meet the man.  He's not hard to find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2021 at 4:01 PM, EdF said:

Ciattarelli has won seven races and lost one.  Singh is now what?  0-5?  Ciattarelli's lone loss was to the sitting Lieutenant Governor.  

Singh financed his way into the debate by loaning his campaign $418,000 of the $490,000 that was needed.  Rizzo claims to have raised the money but filed insufficient paperwork for the debate and filed it two days late.   

Ciattarelli has already been working with candidates in all 40 legislative districts.  We never heard a word from Singh or Rizzo.  

For all of vocal support they received, Singh and Rizzo together got fewer votes than Ciattarelli.  

Go meet the man.  He's not hard to find.

Kim Guadagno had never previously run for any office when she beat Ciatterelli. 

Ciatterelli is working with the NJ GOP, with their endorsement, so ofcourse he's in touch with other GOP backed candidates. Theyre no different than the NJ DNC that turn their backs on all of Murphys opponents to make sure he won. 

This is why we call it the "swamp". Basically anyone who doesnt get the parties stamp of approval is shunned. 

If Ciatterelli couldn't beat guadagno, and she could bet Murphy by a long shot... what logic puts Ciatterelli ahead of Murphy? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

Kim Guadagno had never previously run for any office when she beat Ciatterelli. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Guadagno

She was Monmouth County Sheriff, Lieutenant Governor and Secretary of State.  She was the sitting Lieutenant Governor when she ran for Governor.  She was the first ELECTED  Lieutenant Governor in the state's history.

The two other candidate WANTED to be the GOP candidate.  That's why they were running.  They reached out to no one.  

Believe whatever the fuck you want.  I answer your endless questions and you just seem to have a desire to be contrary.  Vote for who you want.  Whoever YOU think will make a difference.  If that means that you write in Hirsh Singh, have at it.  Nobody in this race is going to get everybody's vote.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...