America cannot be great with Paul Ryan as Speaker

[LaDexter]

IMHO If he were SoTH today he wouldn't be doing any better than Ryan is.

disagree 100%

 

[LaDexter]

How is trying someone for a capital offense better than censorship? Wouldn't the result be the same except the person is dead...?

I don't want him gagged. I want him to explain a few things, like what he and Bibi discussed in DC in mid Nov 2015... for starters....

Did you talk to Bibi about Global Warming, Speaker Ryan???

 

[Brain357]

Anyone still doubt republicans are not fiscally conservative?

 

[LaDexter]

Anyone still doubt republicans are not fiscally conservative?

Since Newt, the answer is NO.

 

[Avatar4321]

Without science, infrastructure and education will NOT be great. Period...

Ryan sucks but he at least understands that it isn't free.

If you are going to push for education, which I am all for, wouldn't it be prudent to write in complete sentences?

 

[Avatar4321]

First question for Paul Ryan under oath....

Did you meet with Netanyahu in mid Nov of 2015?

Is that illegal now ?

 

[Avatar4321]

China will be very happy when America finally gives up on our leadership in science and accepts being a third world shithole.

Do you know what third world means?

 

[LaDexter]

Is that illegal now ?

No

What did he discuss with Bibi in Nov 2015?

Is asking that of the Speaker under oath still legal???

Bibi wanted Ryan to do something very very bad. Ryan responded as all "Republicans" have since 1998, by getting on his knees and saying YES MASTER!!!

 

[Avatar4321]

If Newt was Speaker, O-care would be repealed, spending would be cut, the wall would be funded, and Trump's 100 days would be 100% successful.

Paul Ryan is the problem.

No, Newt wouldn't fare any better than Ryan and Boehner.

The problem is that the Republican party is badly fractured, most glaringly in the House.

Half the Republicans would like to actually get shit done.

But, the Freedom Caucus types rose to prominence on a sentiment of nothing more than opposition to government.

Compromise is a dirty word to them.

Such a caucus is not really interested in governing as much as they are to fealty to arch-conservative orthodoxy.

It's impossible to get anything done when half the party just wants to burn the mission down.

The problem is that the Republican party has become hopelessly dysfunctional by design, and Trump is losing allies in both camps by the day.

The freedom caucus are the ones who want to get things done. The rest want to pretend they are doing something

 

[Avatar4321]

Nonsense. Our politicians don't make us great. Nor do our laws. We are great when the people are great. And the people are great when the people are good.

Doesn't matter who has power. The power is in our hands not theirs

What country are YOU living in? The power isn't in your hands, the power is in the hands of the nexus of politicians, bureaucrats and well-moneyed special interests operating in the D.C. rats nest. You just get the warm & fuzzy illusion that your vote means that you have the power, just look at the results, the federal government continues to grow in size, scope and cost and the liberty and prosperity of the people continues to shrink in proportion.

The Republican Party and the Democrat Party have done a very thorough job of executing the "divide and conquer" strategy on the citizenry, to the point that we're so divided that our popular sovereignty has been completely conquered.

The united states of America. You?

 

[Avatar4321]

He's an incompetent milquetoast wuss. Just like John Boehner was. And Mitch McConnell isn't much better. They like things just the way they are. Trump gets things done. And he's thoroughly frustrated by how feckless Republican Leadership is.

Trump didn't expect that. He just assumed they would wanna get things done too. Trump's not a professional Politician. He doesn't understand their inept laziness. I think Ryan and McConnell do have to go. It's time.

Trump isn't getting much done...

 

[busybee01]

If Newt was Speaker, O-care would be repealed, spending would be cut, the wall would be funded, and Trump's 100 days would be 100% successful.

Paul Ryan is the problem.

Obviously you don't know your history. The Republicans gained control of the House largely because of a group of conservatives who were inspired to run by Ronald Reagan. They tried to cut spending which put them at odds with Gingrich. That group of Republicans grew dissatisfied with Gingrich and the entire leadership and tried to get rid of them. Gingrich had a Star Chamber style trial of these conservatives. In 1998, when the party in the White House usually loses seats, Republicans lost seats.

Now Gingrich is as crazy as Trump. The American people do not want a wall built and they do not want to see millions lose their insurance. If Gingrich was in charge, Republicans would lose the House.

 

[Avatar4321]

During the 2014 elections in my home state of Maryland, there were problems with some of the ballot machines, whereby many ballots cast for Republicans “coincidentally” were automatically rendered as Democrat ballots. With the omnibus deal forged at 2 a.m. last night in Congress, this is essentially what has happened on a national level. People voted for a revolution – to drain the swamp – and out popped a Democrat budget. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find anything different about this budget from the one we would have gotten if Hillary had been elected.Betrayal beyond belief: Dem priorities funded; Trump’s scuttled

Well what do you expect from a liberal ny Republican?

 

[Avatar4321]

They won't because they CAN'T

Laughable

Submit bill to cut spending. Vote to cut spending. They CAN do that. They do not want to do that because Paul Ryan doesn't want to do that. Paul Ryan need to go and be replaced by a Speaker who DOES want to do that.

No they can't because they cannot agree on what spending to cut because everybody with the possible exception of the Freedom Caucus all have vote buying pet spending that they won't touch, nor can they put anything together that will pass muster in the Senate since the Republicans have the same problem in the Senate. That's in addition to the fact that the spending cuts that are needed go beyond discretionary spending and straight into entitlements, which has proven to be a political dead end.

As it stands today the best estimates are that the Republicans will need to find between $300billion to $700billion a year in spending cuts (after factoring in economic growth) to fund the Trump tax reform "wish list" (not including his proposed $1 Trillion in new infrastructure spending), where do you figure they're going to find those cuts? The last time a Republican led House actually CUT spending was in 1997 and that was possible because they had Democrat support, do you think that's possible now?

As far as replacing Paul Ryan, who do you imagine that they can replace him with that would be any better?

Anyone from the freedom caucus

 

[LaDexter]

They tried to cut spending which put them at odds with Gingrich.

You and the left can lie all you want. Next thing you'll claim is that Bill Clinton wanted to cut spending, instead of shutting down the government in 1995 to get spending increased, which is what he did.

The Gingrich Revolution was ???

Republican Revolution - Wikipedia


"Rather than campaigning independently in each district, Republican candidates chose to rally behind a single national program and message fronted by Georgia congressman Newt Gingrich. They alleged President Bill Clinton was not the New Democrat he claimed he was during his 1992 campaign, but was a "tax and spend" liberal. The Republicans offered an alternative to Clinton's policies in the form of the Contract with America.[2]"

Contract with America - Wikipedia

 

[Manonthestreet]

During the 2014 elections in my home state of Maryland, there were problems with some of the ballot machines, whereby many ballots cast for Republicans “coincidentally” were automatically rendered as Democrat ballots. With the omnibus deal forged at 2 a.m. last night in Congress, this is essentially what has happened on a national level. People voted for a revolution – to drain the swamp – and out popped a Democrat budget. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find anything different about this budget from the one we would have gotten if Hillary had been elected.Betrayal beyond belief: Dem priorities funded; Trump’s scuttled

Well what do you expect from a liberal ny Republican?

RYAN is from WI

 

[Avatar4321]

How is trying someone for a capital offense better than censorship? Wouldn't the result be the same except the person is dead...?

I don't want him gagged. I want him to explain a few things, like what he and Bibi discussed in DC in mid Nov 2015... for starters....

Did you talk to Bibi about Global Warming, Speaker Ryan???

If you want someone to talk, charging them with a crime is not the best way to do it.

 

[LaDexter]

If you want someone to talk, charging them with a crime is not the best way to do it.

The crime already occurred. What is wrong with putting Ryan under oath and asking some questions???

 

[busybee01]

They tried to cut spending which put them at odds with Gingrich.

You and the left can lie all you want. Next thing you'll claim is that Bill Clinton wanted to cut spending, instead of shutting down the government in 1995 to get spending increased, which is what he did.

The Gingrich Revolution was ???

Republican Revolution - Wikipedia


"Rather than campaigning independently in each district, Republican candidates chose to rally behind a single national program and message fronted by Georgia congressman Newt Gingrich. They alleged President Bill Clinton was not the New Democrat he claimed he was during his 1992 campaign, but was a "tax and spend" liberal. The Republicans offered an alternative to Clinton's policies in the form of the Contract with America.[2]"

Contract with America - Wikipedia

You can ignore the facts if you like. Bill Clinton was clearly positioning himself for 1996 which is why he signed welfare reform and compromised with Clinton on the budget. Clinton was a smart politician in contrast to his wife.

"Mr. Gingrich's reflexive pugilistic response was evident even tonight. In his second conference call, said several members who listened, Mr. Gingrich blamed House conservatives for his downfall. Although it was their revolutionary zeal he harnessed to take control of Congress, they have become his most bitter critics in the last two years of his tumultuous speakership. Tonight he called them cannibals who had ''blackmailed'' him into quitting, said those listening to the call."

THE SPEAKER STEPS DOWN: THE OVERVIEW; FACING A REVOLT, GINGRICH WON'T RUN FOR SPEAKER AND WILL QUIT CONGRESS

 

[NightFox]

They won't because they CAN'T

Laughable

Submit bill to cut spending. Vote to cut spending. They CAN do that. They do not want to do that because Paul Ryan doesn't want to do that. Paul Ryan need to go and be replaced by a Speaker who DOES want to do that.

No they can't because they cannot agree on what spending to cut because everybody with the possible exception of the Freedom Caucus all have vote buying pet spending that they won't touch, nor can they put anything together that will pass muster in the Senate since the Republicans have the same problem in the Senate. That's in addition to the fact that the spending cuts that are needed go beyond discretionary spending and straight into entitlements, which has proven to be a political dead end.

As it stands today the best estimates are that the Republicans will need to find between $300billion to $700billion a year in spending cuts (after factoring in economic growth) to fund the Trump tax reform "wish list" (not including his proposed $1 Trillion in new infrastructure spending), where do you figure they're going to find those cuts? The last time a Republican led House actually CUT spending was in 1997 and that was possible because they had Democrat support, do you think that's possible now?

As far as replacing Paul Ryan, who do you imagine that they can replace him with that would be any better?

Anyone from the freedom caucus

Wouldn't do any better (even if you could get one of them elected to the Speakership, which isn't very likely), you'd be putting a member of one of the two extreme ends of the House Republicans in the job, meaning that he or she would start off without the support of half of the GOP House Caucus. The whole reason Ryan is in the job is because he was pretty much the only guy that both the Freedom Caucus and the Moderates could agree on, it's a thankless "herding cats on LSD" job, Ryan may be a douche bag Congress Critter but IMHO he's about the best the Republicans can do right now.