Paul Ryan: Donald Trump can help us make our agenda a reality

[NeuroTypical]

Sometimes I make predictions.  Usually they fall flat.  But this one, made half in jest in March, may actually have some legs to it:

Quote

Donald Trump will win the presidency, despite the fact that almost every single American voter actively campaigns against him (on Facebook at least).

President Trump will do a bunch of stuff that you'll hate and I'll like. He'll do a bunch of stuff that you'll like and I'll hate. And then he'll do one or two things that the entire world hates. People will cross aisles and form new alliances in order to stop it, but some of it will happen anyway.

People will start drawing analogies with Nixon. Some folks will try to make the best of it, and you'll hear the old phrase resurrected "Yeah, he's a [beep], but he's our [beep]." In Washington, Pro Trump liberals will suddenly remember things like Nixon ending the war in VietNam. Anti Trump conservatives will openly rebel in every way feasible, from impeachment, to attempting a constitutional convention.

I predict the Trump presidency will end it's second term early, but whether by resignation, impeachment, or natural-death-conspiracy-fodder I can't tell. The event will mark a rare coming-together of Americans and the world in a unified shout of "Good riddance". Then our collective attnetion will swing to Lady Gaga's televised live birth - a genderfluid child born pregnant, having won it's first Oscar in-utero, and the world will not speak the name Trump for two decades. Our grandchildren will eventually figure out that he actually saved us all despite all our best efforts to stop him. If we hadn't banded together against him, we never would have been ready for the evil space emperor and his gelatinous armies.

Edited June 3, 2016 by NeuroTypical

[Guest MormonGator]

13 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Sometimes I make predictions.  Usually they fall flat.  But this one, made half in jest in March, may actually have some legs to it:

 if he can't unite conservatives how is he going to unite moderates? 

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 if he can't unite conservatives how is he going to unite moderates? 

What makes you conclude he hasn't united Conservatives and Moderates?  He has gotten more primary votes than anyone in US History.  And we haven't even been through California yet.

[anatess2]

50 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Nope. It's because people think Trump is a plant who doesn't believe a word he says and will therefore be worse than Hillary because he's duped his supporters into thinking he's something he is not. 

 

And that right there is difference between Trumpers and Never Trumpers. 

 

You're right there with Bush blew up the towers on 9/11...

He's been on TV since the 70's and 80's you know.  Singing the same tune.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

What makes you conclude he hasn't united Conservatives and Moderates?  

Because he hasn't. That's why there is a "NeverTrump" movement in the first place 

 

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

You're right there with Bush blew up the towers on 9/11...

 

Disappointed in you/sad you went there given my open distaste for the 9/11 truthers. Another variation of Goodwin's Law, I guess. Than again, maybe Trumpers don't know how they come across or worse, don't care. 

 

Edited June 3, 2016 by MormonGator

[Just_A_Guy]

5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Sure.  You don't have to trust him.  But let's take the Supreme Court Justices list for an example... he presented a list.  It is a good list.  You're thinking... oh, but he won't really nominate them.  Well, maybe he will, maybe he won't.  But, chances are, he will... (because, why bother coming up with a list?). 

Well, if it were Dole or McCain or Romney who released such a list, it would be roundly dismissed as a naked attempt to pander to conservatives.  So why won't we go ahead and say it about Trump, whose RINO credentials are just as strong as the other three?

Quote

So, then all we have to worry about is the nominee getting Congressional approval.  Well, the Art of the Deal dude won't nominate someone just to give up on them that easy at the approval process even through the stonewalling dems.  That guy hates to lose... it's a pride thing (something that is great when it's on our camp.  America First is a matter of pride for him).

Trump prevents a Dem filibuster either by making concessions elsewhere, or by sending troops to occupy Capitol Hill.  Neither option strikes me as palatable.

But to suggest he won't give up because he doesn't like losing, ignores all the times he has backpedaled or run away from inconvenient positions.  Trump won't admit defeat, sure.  He'll just look you right in the eyes and said "List?  What list?  There was never a list.  I never gave you a list. Well, I didn't actually nominate Tom Lee; I just threw his name out there, and the Senate rejected him because he's actually kind of an idiot, which I knew all along, and that's actually why I nominated him.  Because Merrick Garland is actually a swell guy and a stupendous jurist, and now that the Senate has burnt themselves out on Tom Lee there will be no problem getting Garland confirmed."

Quote

You're willing to risk Hillary becoming President over the chance that Trump might not pick one from this list or anybody like unto it and fight the dems over the approval?

Before getting into this, can I a) note the irony that preserving Heller would depend on the election of a man who supported the Assault Weapons Ban, and b) point out that situation was not of the #NeverTrumpers' making? 

But, to answer your question:  Yes.  Because, as I've argued several times, I think in the long run Trump will be worse for conservatism--and therefore, the country--than Hillary will.  The permanent stalling of progressivism's march doesn't depend on government bureaucrats and the imposition of a top-down political ethos; it depends on the American people's rejecting progressivist dogma at the grass-roots level.  It is conservatism, not populism, that has the ideological chops to engage and refute progressivism; and Trump has been virtually systematically undermining conservative principles, people, and institutions for the majority of his campaign.

And honestly, I don't think most Trump supporters are particularly scared by Hillary, or concerned about SCOTUS.  If they didn't want to see Hillary in the White House, they wouldn't have been openly threatening a party schism last month and they wouldn't have pushed a candidate that so many Republicans found so utterly revolting.  And if they wanted solid conservative nominees, they had a solid dozen other Republican primary candidates who could have offered them a "heck yeah!!!" rather than the "well, maybe . . ." that is Trump.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[james12]

On June 3, 2016 at 8:13 AM, anatess2 said:

Sure.  If that was anybody else but Paul Ryan.  Paul Ryan is a wonky guy.  I've studied him in 2012.  He's one of these idealistic guys that have not gotten sucked up into the abyss of politics in his desire to get the government working.

Until now...

[Jamie123]

I'm certainly not voting for Donald Trump!!!

(Nor anyone else in the US presidential election. I'm not an American.) 

[anatess2]

10 hours ago, james12 said:

Until now...

Show proof.

[NightSG]

On 6/3/2016 at 9:16 PM, Eowyn said:

No mod action because it's in the Bible.

Don't make me go dig up some obscure slang translations 

[anatess2]

9 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

I'm certainly not voting for Donald Trump!!!

(Nor anyone else in the US presidential election. I'm not an American.) 

Hopefully, you're not Labor either!

[Guest]

4 hours ago, NightSG said:

Don't make me go dig up some obscure slang translations 

You would!

[james12]

8 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Show proof.

Trump has shown by his words and actions that he does not support key principles Ryan supports. For example, Trump does not favor Ryan's push for entitlement reform, tax limits, or adherence to the rule of law and constitutional principles. It seems quite clear that Ryan endorsed him largely because in their face to face meeting Trump said he would support Ryan's House Agenda. Ryan has told us that the agenda outlines a plan for a better tax code, provides a better health care plan than Obamacare, and offers a way to restore constitutional principles. Notice any problems with Ryan's agenda and Trump's positions? In two of three issues Ryan specifically mentions, they are on different sides of the fence! This is not idealism, it is what we call politics.  

Edited June 7, 2016 by james12

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, james12 said:

Trump has shown by his words and actions that he does not support key principles Ryan does. For example, Trump does not favor Ryan's push for entitlement reform, tax limits, or adherence to the constitution. It seems quite clear that Ryan endorsed him because he at one point said he would support Ryan's House Agenda. Ryan said the agenda would outline a plan for a better tax code, show a better health care plan than Obamacare, and offer a way to restore the Constitution. Notice and problems with Ryan's agenda and Trump's positions? In two of three issues Ryan specifically mentioned they are on different sides of the fence! This is not idealism, it is what we call politics.  

I disagree.

Ryan represents the 2nd branch of government.  He does not have to agree with the executive branch even if it is his own party.  He has done a lot of work shaping up Congress to push his idea of a Republican agenda waiting for a time when he could present it to a POTUS that would be open to signing them to law.  This is the balance of power that is guaranteed by the design of the Constitution.  It's not gonna happen with Obama.  It's not gonna happen with Hillary.  At this point, Ryan has 2 choices:  Trump or stay neutral.

Both choices are completely fine and he can defend it in his re-election bid as Wisconsin was Cruz country.  What is presenting him with trouble against Nehlen is his signing of the omnibus which was a Boehner time-bomb that caused Boehner to abdicate his throne.  It has not much to do with the Trump campaign.

But yes, Ryan and Trump are completely opposed on some things, disagree with other things, and agree on other things as follows:

1.)  Social Security and Medicare (a Ryan wonky pet project) - they disagree with changing main portions of this entitlement.  Ryan believes this entitlement's funding needs to be shored up through austere cutting measures such as raising the retirement age and privatizing portions of it.  Trump believes it needs benefits needs to be left alone but that it needs to be managed properly to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse.  He also believes funding for SS will be taken care of by a robust economy.  Trump also believes the government should directly negotiate with drug companies on the price of drugs.  Ryan is opposed to this.

2.)  Foreign policy - very opposed.  Ryan sides with the Bush doctrine, Trump does not.

3.)  Eminent Domain - very opposed.  Ryan actively legislated an anti-Eminent Domain bill.  Trump is pro-Eminent Domain.

4.) Trade - very opposed.  Ryan is completely pro-TPP, Trump is completely against it.

5.) Immigration - disagrees with major portions of it.  Ryan is pro-legalization actively writing legislation to that effect.  Trump is pro-deportation.  They both agree on border security and "the wall".

Things they agree on:

Okay, I cut and pasted these from the results of the meeting between Trump and Ryan... they are Trump's proposals that Ryan (and most Republicans) either agrees with or is flexible on:

• Repeal Obamacare in its entirety.
• Enact legislation that creates a national health insurance market. (Anatess note:  Ryan already has this in committee).
• Expand health savings accounts. (Anatess note:  Ryan already has this in committee).
• Mandate price transparency in health care and medication.  (Anatess note:  Ryan already has this in committee).
• De-fund Planned Parenthood so long as it performs abortions.
• Prohibit federal funding for or review of state curriculum mandates and tests, which helped nationalize Common Core.
• Authorize funding for a border wall, including provisions for alternative funding, such as levies against remittances to Mexico.
• Triple the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.
• Mandate nationwide E-verify.
• De-fund sanctuary cities.
• Raise the prevailing wage paid to H-1Bs to make U.S. citizens competitive.
• Increase standards for admitting refugees and asylum-seekers, including stronger background checks.
• Pause in issuing green cards until U.S. citizen unemployment improves.
• End birthright citizenship, i.e. no more “anchor babies.”
• Allow veterans to use Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits to purchase private health care from any doctor or care facility that accepts Medicare.
• Increase funding for VA treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder.
• Increase VA funding for job training and placement services for veterans
• Fund OB/GYN services at all VA hospitals.
• Simplify the tax code consistent with Trump’s proposals.
• Eliminate all income taxes on singles making $25,000 or less, and on all married couples making $50,000 or less.
• Enact legislation for a one-time repatriation of corporate cash held overseas, with repatriated funds to be taxed at 10 percent and no other penalty.
• Enact a 15 percent maximum business tax, for corporate tax as well as small businesses and freelancers.
• Eliminate the death tax.
• Enforce the Second Amendment by ending gun and magazine bans.
• Enforce the Second Amendment by requiring states to put criminal and mental health records onto background check system.
• Enforce the Second Amendment by enacting a national right-to-carry law, with permits to be valid in all 50 states.
• Authorize the Keystone Pipeline.  (Anatess note:  Ryan already has this in committee).
• Provide for an initial round of funding for new infrastructure construction and repair.

 

As you can see, they are not "on different sides of the fence".  But, having a Congress that is a "Yes Man" to the POTUS will give you another round of the follies of a Congress being "Yes Man" to George W. Bush that gave us Medicare Part D, destructive Trade agreements, a bloated federal government with massive debt, the Iraq War, and an invasive global social engineering effort (yeah, install democracy in Palestine and they'll put Hamas in power, duh), among others.

Ryan endorsing Trump for what they can agree on and still reserve his opposition to things they don't agree on will prove to be a better balance of power for the USA and proves Ryan's commitment to a working government.

 

[james12]

I hope it's as you say, because I've liked Ryan, but I don't see it yet. In fact, Ryan came out in clear opposition to Trump and then after one discussion he was in support. What will he do when he and Trump don't agree on another significant issue? Will he really stand up or will he cave again? At this point he looks weak, even if his 180 was genuine. Perception will kill you in the abyss of politics, which is exactly what he has raped himself up in. 

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, james12 said:

I hope it's as you say, because I've liked Ryan, but I don't see it yet. In fact, Ryan came out in clear opposition to Trump and then after one discussion he was in support. What will he do when he and Trump don't agree on another significant issue? Will he really stand up or will he cave again? At this point he looks weak, even if his 180 was genuine. Perception will kill you in the abyss of politics, which is exactly what he has raped himself up in. 

He never expressed a NeverTrump sentiment in the same manner that Romney, his running mate, did.

Ryan is not a "caving" kind of guy.  Rather, he'd negotiate.  He is not a fillibuster kind of guy either.  He has expressed that negotiation after intense debate has always been the way it worked in Congress until the last 10 years.  He says that there are many senators and congressmen right now that hasn't yet experienced how Congress is supposed to work until Ryan got the gears working again.  They've never had to take an issue into committee, draft a bill, stalwartly defend the bill on the floor, negotiate amendments, and bring it to vote for it to make to law without attaching pork packages to buy the votes.  Pelosi and Boehner as well as Reid and McCollum has choked this process so that the only ones to go on the floor are those that clearly die (to blackmark the other party as obstructionists) or clearly pass (to cheer their party's effectiveness).  The ones that get debated are those that can be used to boost re-election campaigns.  Things you want to pass gets hidden in pork to attach to these other ones.

Say what you will about Bill Clinton but the Clinton-Gingrich team was actually a very successful one.

Edited June 7, 2016 by anatess2

[Jamie123]

13 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Hopefully, you're not Labor either!

Not these days. I started voting Labour back in the 1990s, when Blair seemed a welcome change from John Major and the sagging remnants of the Thatcher administration (which itself had seemed so vibrant a decade before). I finally lost patience with Labour during the Gordon Brown years, when it was: "Let's ban everything we don't like the sound of, because it will make the world so much safer (say's us)!" Cameron doesn't seem to be so much of an improvement either so...eugh. The trouble with all these people is they're all politicians.

[NightSG]

12 hours ago, anatess2 said:

 

• Fund OB/GYN services at all VA hospitals.

 

But will these be available to all service members regardless of gender?  

[anatess2]

22 minutes ago, NightSG said:

But will these be available to all service members regardless of gender?  

IT IS REQUIRED FOR MALE SERVICE MEMBERS!!!  I mean, c'mon, why is it that only the females get to have their private parts inspected yearly, hmmm???  And yeah, you wanna get x-men surgery, you get to have a uterus too and get pregnant.