The greatest speaker of our generation, thanks for dramatically reducing the debt Mr. Speaker.

https://news.avclub.com/paul-ryan-takes-photo-with-guy-wearing-repeal-and-go-f-1798261618

sycasey said:

---

https://news.avclub.com/paul-ryan-takes-photo-with-guy-wearing-repeal-and-go-f-1798261618

---

I love the Crooked Media guys.

In 2016, Congressional pay was $174,000 per year, which, at an 80% rate, equates to a lifelong pension benefit of $139,200. All benefits are taxpayer-funded. Additionally, members of Congress enjoy the same Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) as all other federal employees, which is similar to a 401(k).Feb 5, 2018*





*That kind of scratch goes a long way in a sh@thole state like Wisconsin.

http://www.businessinsider.com/cambridge-analytica-executives-and-mercer-family-launch-emerdata-2018-3

okaydo said:

---

The greatest speaker of our generation, thanks for dramatically reducing the debt Mr. Speaker.

---

Don't worry, after cutting all the taxes the House is now going to vote on a balanced budget amendment. But don't worry, even the Republicans are saying its a sham.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/12/17216828/balanced-budget-amendment-trump-ryan-tax

Eight years of yearning for a majority in congress and a Rep president and in 15 months did basically nothing.

No repeal of health care, no immigration. Behind closed doors congress and the WH are far apart on legislative priorities.

.

This is absolutely wrong:

iwantwinners said:

---

Eight years of yearning for a majority in congress and a Rep president and in 15 months did basically nothing.

No repeal of health care, no immigration. Behind closed doors congress and the WH are far apart on legislative priorities.

---

It didn't have to be that way, did it?

Had the GOP beat Hillary with pretty much any other candidate, and had THAT leader in the white house, I doubt you'd be making that post. Therefore, just blame the 13 Million who voted Trump in during the GOP Primaries. (By the way, 13M is just 4% of the nation's 320M, that provides a bit of pause.)

Then again, could "any other candidate" have defeated Hillary?

It's fine to not have Hillary in the WH.
It's NOT fine to have Donald in there.

Maybe we'll get it right next cycle.

okaydo said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

Eight years of yearning for a majority in congress and a Rep president and in 15 months did basically nothing.

No repeal of health care, no immigration. Behind closed doors congress and the WH are far apart on legislative priorities.

---

The Republican agenda is massively popular and makes a lot of sense. It's surprising that they couldn't get things done.

---

Shoot the messenger.

Actually, scratch that last post. Yes, the messenger is to blame for getting nothing done, despite control of both house and the WH. But it's the people who put him there who are ultimately to blame: ANYONE WHO VOTED FOR HIM --> Stupid.

concordtom said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

Eight years of yearning for a majority in congress and a Rep president and in 15 months did basically nothing.

No repeal of health care, no immigration. Behind closed doors congress and the WH are far apart on legislative priorities.

---

It didn't have to be that way, did it?

Had the GOP beat Hillary with pretty much any other candidate, and had THAT leader in the white house, I doubt you'd be making that post. Therefore, just blame the 13 Million who voted Trump in during the GOP Primaries. (By the way, 13M is just 4% of the nation's 320M, that provides a bit of pause.)

Then again, could "any other candidate" have defeated Hillary?

It's fine to not have Hillary in the WH.
It's NOT fine to have Donald in there.

Maybe we'll get it right next cycle.

---

Trump got the most votes ever in a GOP primary.

okaydo said:

---

The greatest speaker of our generation, thanks for dramatically reducing the debt Mr. Speaker.

---

Okaydo
Am I correct to presume that since this speaker did NOT reduce the debt but increased it that you are being facetious and that the true title of this thread should be PAUL RYAN DEPRECIATION THREAD ?

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

Eight years of yearning for a majority in congress and a Rep president and in 15 months did basically nothing.

No repeal of health care, no immigration. Behind closed doors congress and the WH are far apart on legislative priorities.

---

It didn't have to be that way, did it?

Had the GOP beat Hillary with pretty much any other candidate, and had THAT leader in the white house, I doubt you'd be making that post. Therefore, just blame the 13 Million who voted Trump in during the GOP Primaries. (By the way, 13M is just 4% of the nation's 320M, that provides a bit of pause.)

Then again, could "any other candidate" have defeated Hillary?

It's fine to not have Hillary in the WH.
It's NOT fine to have Donald in there.

Maybe we'll get it right next cycle.

---

Trump got the most votes ever in a GOP primary.

---

He also got the most AGAINST him ever in a GOP primary!
In fact, he got more primary votes against him than for him.

Perhaps he (or the wide field with a retiring democrat president) simply drew more people to participate. And the fact that so many republicans ran divided the field.

But he had more votes against him in the primaries and more against him in the general election.
Yet, here we are.

concordtom said:

---

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

Eight years of yearning for a majority in congress and a Rep president and in 15 months did basically nothing.

No repeal of health care, no immigration. Behind closed doors congress and the WH are far apart on legislative priorities.

---

It didn't have to be that way, did it?

Had the GOP beat Hillary with pretty much any other candidate, and had THAT leader in the white house, I doubt you'd be making that post. Therefore, just blame the 13 Million who voted Trump in during the GOP Primaries. (By the way, 13M is just 4% of the nation's 320M, that provides a bit of pause.)

Then again, could "any other candidate" have defeated Hillary?

It's fine to not have Hillary in the WH.
It's NOT fine to have Donald in there.

Maybe we'll get it right next cycle.

---

Trump got the most votes ever in a GOP primary.

---

He also got the most AGAINST him ever in a GOP primary!
In fact, he got more primary votes against him than for him.

Perhaps he (or the wide field with a retiring democrat president) simply drew more people to participate. And the fact that so many republicans ran divided the field.

But he had more votes against him in the primaries and more against him in the general election.
Yet, here we are.

---

True, but getting 14m in a primary is quite an accomplishment. A lot of people voted for Trump. Hillary had around 17 million primary votes, was propped up by the DNC, and only ran against one opponent.

okaydo said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

Eight years of yearning for a majority in congress and a Rep president and in 15 months did basically nothing.

No repeal of health care, no immigration. Behind closed doors congress and the WH are far apart on legislative priorities.

---

The Republican agenda is massively popular and makes a lot of sense. It's surprising that they couldn't get things done.

---

It got a Republican elected 15 months ago. Congress didn't want to do anything Trump wanted. Doesn't surprise me. Republicans hate him.

He should have stuck with his initial position which was to oppose Trump all the way thru.
Now, he'd be looking like a golden boy.
Boy he flipped and tried to both support and ride Trump's coattails, and he will therefore go down in history as a #TOTAL-LOSER!!!

concordtom said:

---

He should have stuck with his initial position which was to oppose Trump all the way thru.
Now, he'd be looking like a golden boy.
Boy he flipped and tried to both support and ride Trump's coattails, and he will therefore go down in history as a #TOTAL-LOSER!!!

---

Mediocre men should be expected to act in a mediocre fashion.

concordtom said:

---

He should have stuck with his initial position which was to oppose Trump all the way thru.
Now, he'd be looking like a golden boy.
Boy he flipped and tried to both support and ride Trump's coattails, and he will therefore go down in history as a #TOTAL-LOSER!!!

---

You're pretty naive and partisan, man. It's not how politics works -- for either party. He publicly supported the president (which all speakers and congress generally would do) but butted heads with him on much of his legislative priorities. Behind closed doors, Ryan and congress rebuked Trump with the Republican party's interest in mind (in their eyes).

iwantwinners said:

---

concordtom said:

---

He should have stuck with his initial position which was to oppose Trump all the way thru.
Now, he'd be looking like a golden boy.
Boy he flipped and tried to both support and ride Trump's coattails, and he will therefore go down in history as a #TOTAL-LOSER!!!

---

You're pretty naive and partisan, man. It's not how politics works -- for either party. He publicly supported the president (which all speakers and congress generally would do) but butted heads with him on much of his legislative priorities. Behind closed doors, Ryan and congress rebuked Trump with the Republican party's interest in mind (in their eyes).

---

You have any proof of this rebuking?

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

concordtom said:

---

He should have stuck with his initial position which was to oppose Trump all the way thru.
Now, he'd be looking like a golden boy.
Boy he flipped and tried to both support and ride Trump's coattails, and he will therefore go down in history as a #TOTAL-LOSER!!!

---

You're pretty naive and partisan, man. It's not how politics works -- for either party. He publicly supported the president (which all speakers and congress generally would do) but butted heads with him on much of his legislative priorities. Behind closed doors, Ryan and congress rebuked Trump with the Republican party's interest in mind (in their eyes).

---

You have any proof of this rebuking?

---

immigration. The wall. Congress wanted no part. Health care. They've stymied everything he campaigned on, that I can think of, except cutting taxes.

iwantwinners said:

---

immigration. The wall. Congress wanted no part. Health care. They've stymied everything he campaigned on, that I can think of, except cutting taxes.

---

The way I remember it Congress worked on all three of those things, they just couldn't come to an agreement. They debated immigration, but failed to garner 60 votes in the senate. They tried several times to dismantle Obamacare (even by shutting nearly everyone out of the process) but failed to gather the votes. And they offered to fund some of the wall as a compromise, but was undercut by the president then asking for more concessions. Paul not only tried to appease Trump, he passed legislation to appease Trump, it just failed in the Senate. Then midway through march they got tired of Trump and began tuning him out.

iwantwinners said:

---

concordtom said:

---

He should have stuck with his initial position which was to oppose Trump all the way thru.
Now, he'd be looking like a golden boy.
Boy he flipped and tried to both support and ride Trump's coattails, and he will therefore go down in history as a #TOTAL-LOSER!!!

---

You're pretty naive and partisan, man. It's not how politics works -- for either party. He publicly supported the president (which all speakers and congress generally would do) but butted heads with him on much of his legislative priorities. Behind closed doors, Ryan and congress rebuked Trump with the Republican party's interest in mind (in their eyes).

---

That's why he's a p----.
Ryan was very much against Trump before he was for him.


I'm not naive.
Hopeful.

This is a great article:

Also, from the comments:

These are the basic rules of fascist media engagement often used by the GOP:

A) Divert attention, change the subject, move the goal posts
B) Blame the victim, play the victim
C) Lie, make stuff up, f vck the facts
D) Attack anyone who disagrees
E) Combine all, mix, rinse, repeat

out of curiosity, if MSM isn't "liberal" what is it? What is CNN, MSLSD? You're not going to assert they're conservative. Are they "neutral"? Not likely either by anybody who doesn't have an ideological agenda. Outside of Fox, what broadcast networks are NOT liberal?

Paul Ryan "survived" like 10 terms because his district liked him. A lot.

iwantwinners said:

---

out of curiosity, if MSM isn't "liberal" what is it? What is CNN, MSLSD? You're not going to assert they're conservative. Are they "neutral"? Not likely either by anybody who doesn't have an ideological agenda. Outside of Fox, what broadcast networks are NOT liberal?

Paul Ryan "survived" like 10 terms because his district liked him. A lot.

---

They are establishment and ratings driven. Corporate.

MSNBC has some liberal shows in the evening.

dajo9 said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

out of curiosity, if MSM isn't "liberal" what is it? What is CNN, MSLSD? You're not going to assert they're conservative. Are they "neutral"? Not likely either by anybody who doesn't have an ideological agenda. Outside of Fox, what broadcast networks are NOT liberal?

Paul Ryan "survived" like 10 terms because his district liked him. A lot.

---

They are establishment and ratings driven. Corporate.

MSNBC has some liberal shows in the evening.

---

The establishment and corporate political culture are liberal. It's not sincere all the time, but the execution is liberal.

MSNBC and CNN are had sponsored the SJW segment of the leftist regressive movement.

Unfortunately, an NPR-style hard-news broadcast bores people. That's why it really doesn't exist in the MSM.

concordtom said:

---

That's why he's a p----.
Ryan was very much against Trump before he was for him.

---

Like the Democrats would. They'd support their president publicly, even if they didn't like him.

Ryan and lots of Rep hates Trump, it's obvious. But they can't say it.

iwantwinners said:

---

out of curiosity, if MSM isn't "liberal" what is it? What is CNN, MSLSD? You're not going to assert they're conservative. Are they "neutral"? Not likely either by anybody who doesn't have an ideological agenda. Outside of Fox, what broadcast networks are NOT liberal?

Paul Ryan "survived" like 10 terms because his district liked him. A lot.

---

If the liberal media was liberal, why were they tougher on Hillary than Trump? Why did they take her more seriously as a candidate than him?

Also, why did "liberal" papers like The New York Times act on behalf of the Bush administration in the Iraq War?

I look forward to reading this, which is sitting in my mailbox.

okaydo said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

out of curiosity, if MSM isn't "liberal" what is it? What is CNN, MSLSD? You're not going to assert they're conservative. Are they "neutral"? Not likely either by anybody who doesn't have an ideological agenda. Outside of Fox, what broadcast networks are NOT liberal?

Paul Ryan "survived" like 10 terms because his district liked him. A lot.

---

If the liberal media was liberal, why were they tougher on Hillary than Trump? Why did they take her more seriously as a candidate than him?

Also, why did "liberal" papers like The New York Times act on behalf of the Bush administration in the Iraq War?

---

Is this serious? What MSM outlets are not liberal. Tougher on Hillary than Trump? Give it up.

Acknowledging the MSM is flagrantly liberal is not, in and of itself, suggestive that liberalism is "wrong"...only that it is biased and in favor of "liberalism", which is admittedly almost a useless term, as it has as many allowable interpretations in our society as "Islam" and "Christianity".