• Paul Ryan 'will no longer defend Trump'
    29 replies, posted
[media]https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/785498801062543360[/media] I guess the debate wasn't good enough :v: [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/10/10/paul-ryan-wont-defend-or-campaign-for-trump-ahead-of-election/[/url] [quote]House Speaker Paul Ryan will not campaign with or defend Donald Trump through the November election, according to a knowledgeable source who participated in a phone call with House GOP lawmakers on Monday morning. “The speaker is going to spend the next month focused entirely on protecting our congressional majorities,” said Ryan spokeswoman AshLee Strong. The Wisconsin Republican cancelled an appearance with his party’s presidential nominee over the weekend after a 2005 videotape surfaced of Trump making lewd comments about women. He said he was “disgusted” by the comments, but did not at that time withdraw his support for Trump.[/quote]
Still hasn't withdrawn his endorsement though, has he
the stupid thing is even with a democrat blowout, they have to win a massive portion of the actual vote to ever retake the house thanks to 2010 gerrymandering [url]http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-house-majority-is-safe-right/[/url]
Can we finally get a democratic house of rep and senate this time?
I was looking at that guys twitter and [media]https://twitter.com/JesseRodriguez/status/785510345934671872[/media]
[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/pGSLqyU.png[/IMG] I find it funny that Paul Ryan is more influiential in this election than he was in the one where he was a VP
[QUOTE=Chaitin;51182959]Can we finally get a democratic house of rep and senate this time?[/QUOTE] pls no. The Second Amendment and Nuclear Power are too good, and if we get both sides of the equation turned blue both will be gutted. Best outcome for us in November is a red Congress and a Blue white house. That basically just gives us a mulligan and lets us try again next election year with, hopefully, better candidates.
[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51183023]I find it funny that Paul Ryan is more influiential in this election than he was in the one where he was a VP[/QUOTE] A running-mate has no real position of power to say anything; while his current position is a major figurehead for the party.
[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51183023][IMG]https://i.imgur.com/pGSLqyU.png[/IMG] I find it funny that Paul Ryan is more influiential in this election than he was in the one where he was a VP[/QUOTE] speaker of the house is, in many instances, more powerful than the vp paul ryan is a young guy comparatively. if clinton wins 2016 I think we'll see ryan as the nominee for 2020 or 2024. he's got great approval ratings in party (70% favorable) and pretty decent (44% favorable) among the general electorate.
[QUOTE=TestECull;51183057]pls no. The Second Amendment and Nuclear Power are too good, and if we get both sides of the equation turned blue both will be gutted. Best outcome for us in November is a red Congress and a Blue white house. That basically just gives us a mulligan and lets us try again next election year with, hopefully, better candidates.[/QUOTE] Neither would be gutted, we would have stronger gun control laws and desire to start moving to clean renewable energies, but things will actually start being accomplished and we would actually start moving into the 21st century.
[media]https://twitter.com/JasonMillerinDC/status/785519765787934720[/media] lol
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;51183129]speaker of the house is, in many instances, more powerful than the vp paul ryan is a young guy comparatively. if clinton wins 2016 I think we'll see ryan as the nominee for 2020 or 2024. he's got great approval ratings in party (70% favorable) and pretty decent (44% favorable) among the general electorate.[/QUOTE] too bad kanye is gonna win 2020
[QUOTE=TheHydra;51183230][media]https://twitter.com/JasonMillerinDC/status/785519765787934720[/media] lol[/QUOTE] He's not wrong. Take away the GOP and Trump still has a sizable electorate with oodles of money. It's always been the voters and his morally-dubious campaign staff that carry the Trump campaign.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51183582]He's not wrong. Take away the GOP and Trump still has a sizable electorate with oodles of money. It's always been the voters and his morally-dubious campaign staff that carry the Trump campaign.[/QUOTE] he doesnt have nearly as much money as you think he does
[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51183023][IMG]https://i.imgur.com/pGSLqyU.png[/IMG] I find it funny that Paul Ryan is more influiential in this election than he was in the one where he was a VP[/QUOTE] After the Vice President, the Speaker of the House is next in line to become president. Since both the President and VP are Democrats, this means Ryan is the head of the GOP right now.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;51184081]he doesnt have nearly as much money as you think he does[/QUOTE] Or maybe he does, but he probably doesn't. He's quite secretive about it. Probably 'cause he's no that rich. But maybe just because he cheats in taxes like crazy.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;51184081]he doesnt have nearly as much money as you think he does[/QUOTE] Okay? Your point? His campaign has still been largely powered by what could be described as a grassroots movement while the establishment has shunned him right up until the last minute. You guys are picking at the wrong details here. [editline]10th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Riller;51184127]Or maybe he does, but he probably doesn't. He's quite secretive about it. Probably 'cause he's no that rich. But maybe just because he cheats in taxes like crazy.[/QUOTE] I don't know why people are so bipolar about Trump's wealth. On one hand he's an evil billionaire demagogue gaming the tax system and disconnected from the common man because of how filthy rich he is, on the other he's actually not very wealthy at all and his wealth is apparently a charade despite all evidence to the contrary.
[QUOTE=ZachPL;51183136]Neither would be gutted[/quote] Yes, they would. There's a significant enough chunk of the blue team far enough left that nothing short of a total gun ban will appease them, and if we have blue and blue they will get that. The only way moderates win out in our government is if the white house is the opposite party, but said administration also reaches across the aisle and negotiates sensible compromise that the more moderate members of both parties can live with. If you have party A in control of both parts of the government the extremists on the far side will win out every time. [quote]we would have stronger gun control laws[/quote] No, we get this if we have opposing colors in the white house and Congress, yet the people therein work towards a compromise that satisfies the majority of people on either side of the debate. I'm all for stricter control on who can and cannot buy a firearm(Ideally it's only people with no history of violent crime AND certification that they are trained in the safe handling and operation of such devices, this is fair, also close the gun show loophole already), but I'm not for what the far left want. They want to needlessly and pointlessly restrict what kind of guns we can buy, often because they 'look scary'. I can build up a Ruger 10/22 to look like a big bad assault rifle and run afoul of the AWB, and I can build up an M16 to look like grandpappy's huntin' rifle and nobody'd bat a fucking eye at it seeing it in the back window of my truck. Which one's gonna be more dangerous in a firefight, the peashooter with a bunch of tacticool bullshit welded on or the legit military assault rifle with wood furniture and a polished stainless barrel? No, if we have blue and blue the far left will win out and the second amendment will be gutted if not outright repealed. [quote] and desire to start moving to clean renewable energies[/quote] [b]We've had one for seventy, almost eighty years now![/b] But the Left won't give you the time of day when you plonk down a piece of Uranium the size of a cell phone and tell them it could power the entire city. Even [i]hinting[/i] at nuclear power and they start foaming at the mouth. Between unintelligible rants you'll hear them mutter chernobyl, fukushima, cry about the waste(Hey nimrods we spent [b]billions[/b] building a place to put the shit and we're not even fucking using it), blablabla. No, they HATE nuclear power. They will actively work to close existing reactors, stop new ones from being built, stop old ones from being upgraded to newer, safer designs that can run on waste products/warheads, they'll gut funding to Fusion research, then wonder why the fucking lights dim every time a cloud floats past the window. Fucking idiots. We've had clean, near-limitless energy with zero greenhouse gas emissions and pretty much complete indifference to external weather conditions since the end of the second world war and we keep throwing it in the back closet in favor of part-time pipe dreams that don't satisfy the needs of the grid and cost an absolute fortune. One pound of ~5% enriched Uranium 235 will power 400 square miles of America for several [i]years[/i]. ONE POUND! ONE! And a reactor never uses just one pound of the stuff, there's usually 15-20 pounds of fissile material in there. We're talking a power source that is about as close to limitless as current technology will allow, one that would pretty much overnight remove a third of our greenhouse emissions if it replaced fossil fuel plants, and it's one the far left has a massive hateboner for. For no reason. A good hard push towards replacing coal, natural gas with fission plants will provide an immediate and drastic reduction in greenhouse emissions while buying us more than enough time to get fusion working properly. Why the fuck are we not doing it?! [quote] but things will actually start being accomplished[/quote] Bad things. The far left would be able to run roughshod and we'd be just as bad off as if we had a red congress and a red white house. Just in a different way. I hope you enjoy only having electricity when it's bright and sunny, and I hope you like the idea of 100+ million people being punished for the actions of less than 10,000, because that's precisely what we'll get with blue and blue. [quote] and we would actually start moving into the 21st century.[/QUOTE] We move into the 21st century when we get red and blue across capitol hill, yet somehow, get red and blue that are willing to work together and find a compromise that works for the majority rather than bicker across the aisle.
[QUOTE=TestECull;51184342]No, if we have blue and blue the far left will win out and the second amendment will be gutted if not outright repealed.[/QUOTE] considering the influence of the gun manufacturers in american politics i have seriously no idea how anyone could think that the second amendment would ever end up being repealed the democrats already struggle to pass relatively mild legislation, so the idea that they'd be able to do what you fear (especially considering the recent rulings of the supreme court which kinda make this extremely difficult) with democrats in power is massively overstated
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51184399]considering the influence of the gun manufacturers in american politics i have seriously no idea how anyone could think that the second amendment would ever end up being repealed[/QUOTE] That influence runs deep on the [i]red[/i] side of the Aisle. That influence is very easy to overwhelm if you have a blue majority on Capitol Hill and a blue President. It's not hard at all to see how the gun lobby's power falls short in a situation like that, pretty much every politician they've bought is a Republican.
[QUOTE=TestECull;51184410]That influence runs deep on the [i]red[/i] side of the Aisle. That influence is very easy to overwhelm if you have a blue majority on Capitol Hill and a blue President. It's not hard at all to see how the gun lobby's power falls short in a situation like that, pretty much every politician they've bought is a Republican.[/QUOTE] in order to maintain that you need a consistent majority of people voting in favour of it, and somehow I think getting rid of the second amendment will be a little tricky considering it's an amendment and all in a country where an entire political ideology was born based around gun fetishization
[QUOTE=TestECull;51184410]That influence runs deep on the [i]red[/i] side of the Aisle. That influence is very easy to overwhelm if you have a blue majority on Capitol Hill and a blue President. It's not hard at all to see how the gun lobby's power falls short in a situation like that, pretty much every politician they've bought is a Republican.[/QUOTE] holy shit nobody is coming for your guns
There's far too many privately owned guns in the US to ever effectively repeal the 2nd amendment.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51183582]He's not wrong. Take away the GOP and Trump still has a sizable electorate with oodles of money. It's always been the voters and his morally-dubious campaign staff that carry the Trump campaign.[/QUOTE] Still need the traditional GOP vote and then some for him to win, when his own party's demographic is speaking out against him and he still needs some of the swing vote to carry over him over the line it isn't looking good.
[QUOTE=TestECull;51184342][B]We've had one for seventy, almost eighty years now![/B] But the Left won't give you the time of day when you plonk down a piece of Uranium the size of a cell phone and tell them it could power the entire city. Even [I]hinting[/I] at nuclear power and they start foaming at the mouth. Between unintelligible rants you'll hear them mutter chernobyl, fukushima, cry about the waste(Hey nimrods we spent [B]billions[/B] building a place to put the shit and we're not even fucking using it), blablabla. No, they HATE nuclear power. They will actively work to close existing reactors, stop new ones from being built, stop old ones from being upgraded to newer, safer designs that can run on waste products/warheads, they'll gut funding to Fusion research, then wonder why the fucking lights dim every time a cloud floats past the window.[/QUOTE] I agree. Nuclear is a strange case in that the party you'd THINK would be supportive of it is quite radically against it, while the party you'd expect to oppose nuclear (especially due to the influence of Big Oil) is often supportive of it due to the jobs it brings to their districts/states. I see the battle over nuclear in politics all the time as a member of a family where both parents work in the industry and currently work on the largest US nuclear project currently still being built: every other week or so I'd hear stories from them about how they'd have to slow down work (forcing the project to go even more over-budget) because some Anti group or congressman tried to sue or file an injunction on the project, DOE, or the contractors building the plant. Even then, that running over-budget result winds up being used as fuel for the anti-nuclear nuts to try and discredit those keeping the thing funded, which in turn leads to more forced delays, and a near-endless feedback loop. That in turn causes the unionized workers and/or tradesmen on these nuclear plants to wind up getting lazy or quitting due to low morale and/or fear of not having a steady income, which in turn makes for more delays, issues, and cost overruns. It's quite frustrating (personally even more so since I want my family to stay employed even now that I'm on my own), and I personally hope the next generation of politicians on both sides (especially since we're seeing more young people getting interested in politics recently and several recent major politicians have been younger than average) wind up leaning more pro-nuclear and that we can get some 4th Gen reactors built, like molten salt or pebble bed designs. It's essentially the latchkey energy source for dealing with climate change and pollution problems, but because of all the bullshit fearmongering we're letting it wither and die in the US. That being said, I'm still feeling like I lean left as of late, since the social and economic policy under many of the conservative leaders in the US as of late is utterly backwards and horrific for a modern, first-world country. If only we could get a set of leaders in power who are progressive in terms of all fields of policy, including energy...
Hopefully Trump will self destruct and we'll start to see an end to the self-fulfilling prophecy in the US of third party candidates not being relevant in Generals.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;51184081]he doesnt have nearly as much money as you think he does[/QUOTE] If you got this insider information from his tax records, please release it to the press so we can get this charade over with. [QUOTE=Saxon;51184751]Still need the traditional GOP vote and then some for him to win, when his own party's demographic is speaking out against him and he still needs some of the swing vote to carry over him over the line it isn't looking good.[/QUOTE] What is the "traditional GOP vote"? Cruz supporters? Elected officials? Not a great minority. A Republican with enough understanding of partisan politics to be aware of Paul Ryan's existence, let alone his influence, is probably not going to be swung off the party's ticket just because of this.
If he hasn't released his tax returns by now I don't see why he would
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51184738]There's far too many privately owned guns in the US to ever effectively repeal the 2nd amendment.[/QUOTE] it's more the fact that there's no political movement which can even come anywhere close the prohibitionists took the best part of an entire century in which momentum for alcohol legislation built up for it to become a nationwide movement that only just barely managed to ban all alcohol I literally cannot foresee a single situation where you could get enough people together for long enough across the entire country to bring about such a piece of legislation
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.