Werthless wrote:

Youseff wrote:it's beyond obvious Ryan is tucking his dick between his legs until he gets things done, but it should help destroy any notion that he's a good or principled human being.

That's kinda weird, youseff. He is certainly not the first person to subvert his personal dislike for a politician in order to get his policies enacted. If it was another context, and you agreed with the politician's policy, your reaction would likely be different.

i think you're being a little kind in labeling this as "personal dislike". He's excusing out and out lying. This can't be normalized to past situations.

fun fact

Time's person of the year is not an award

given to the person who influenced the world/news the most, good or bad

some past "winners"

1938- Hitler
1939, 1942- Stalin
1957- Krushchev
1979- Ayatollah Khomeneini
1971, 1972- Nixon
2000- W

although the Trump idiots think Putin is good.

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:fun fact

Time's person of the year is not an award

given to the person who influenced the world/news the most, good or bad

some past "winners"

1938- Hitler
1939, 1942- Stalin
1957- Krushchev
1979- Ayatollah Khomeneini
1971, 1972- Nixon
2000- W

Brantt thinks it's like an Oscar award for best performance

I have to think the Time photographer was having a laff with that chair, lighting and pose

Looking to the past

honestly I can't think they would give it to anyone else, even if Hillary won I think he may still have gotten it

My next doctor's visit will have some interesting reading

Conservatives are just gonna keep doing the false equivalencies huh?Bucky already said it on this page, but this presidency is not the same as any before it. Every effort should be made to not normalize it. I get that he's in a difficult spot but from my vantage point Paul Ryan is not a decent, principled man

And that's not even getting into the fact that Paul Ryan's policies are bad

Bucky wrote:

Werthless wrote:

Youseff wrote:it's beyond obvious Ryan is tucking his dick between his legs until he gets things done, but it should help destroy any notion that he's a good or principled human being.

That's kinda weird, youseff. He is certainly not the first person to subvert his personal dislike for a politician in order to get his policies enacted. If it was another context, and you agreed with the politician's policy, your reaction would likely be different.

i think you're being a little kind in labeling this as "personal dislike". He's excusing out and out lying. This can't be normalized to past situations.

Imagine an alternative situation where Ryan is openly antagonistic to Trump. Do you think the US will be in better shape 2 years from now? Perhaps Ryan is pushed from the speakership and Kevin McCarthy is put in place. Is that better? People want Ryan to step in front of a train out of principle, but it's not clear that sacrificing a few people like Ryan is actually better for the US. Now that Trump is the president for the next 4 years, he will pick his battles.

Are we saying that Sanders hurt his principles by not attacking Clinton at all on her emails? Afterall, it delayed the public reckoning on that issue into the general election, and arguably hurt the democrat cause.

td11 wrote:Conservatives are just gonna keep doing the false equivalencies huh?Bucky already said it on this page, but this presidency is not the same as any before it. Every effort should be made to not normalize it. I get that he's in a difficult spot but from my vantage point Paul Ryan is not a decent, principled man

And that's not even getting into the fact that Paul Ryan's policies are bad

If Ryan was a supporter of the ACA and was planning to push for retaining it, you would have someone in power advocating on your behalf. You'd need Ryan to advance the liberal agenda on your behalf. You'd want him in regular communication with Trump, able to influence the president, because you'd need at least one sane voice in his ear. You wouldn't want him to publicly denounce Trump as a lunatic and sacrifice his standing with the President, because you'd believe that keeping health insurance for the 20M people who need the ACA would be a principle worth standing behind. Yes, you'd probably want a lot of criticism of Trump from other areas of leadership, from various attack dogs.

Again, this is a bit of an unprecedented hypothetical, so I can appreciate the disagreement on this. I'll try to resist belaboring this point with subsequent posts.

I love how "openly antagonistic" means not disagreeing with Trumps destructive, harmful, potentially violent lies.

There are interesting noises that some republicans in Congress are looking to use the trump presidency to reassert congressional power. Though the people making theses noises are loathsome, I do think we need a legislative branch that actually legislates.

I think Ryan realizes the speakership is as high as it gets for him now and he wants to use it to do everything I'm opposed to. That kinda sucks for me and people i care about and thus probably clouds my opinion of him. I get that him wanting to do this means he needs to massage the shoulders of President Donnie. I do get that, but it's of little solace when I see Medicaid block granting, Medicare 'fixing' etc being thrown around.

trump sure is appointing a a bunch of stupid generals that he knows more than.

jerseyhoya wrote:He's trying to walk through a minefield to pass tax reform and healthcare reform. He will be ignoring all tweets until these things are either done or it's clear they cannot be done.

Then he's a piece of shit.

I didn't know until now that Hillary wore some weird ass Count Chocula outfit for her concession speech.