• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

So, now we know - it was Paul Ryan (1 Viewer)

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
49,546
Reaction score
17,054
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Numerous comments on DP have asked why the GOP didn't seek border wall funding when they had full control of congress. Turns out Trump wanted it in the 2017 Omnibus Spending Bill but Speaker Paul Ryan talked him out of it in favor of increased military spend and promised Trump he'd get the funding through by other means. Of course as soon as he announced he was retiring he had no power to actually do it. Source
 
Numerous comments on DP have asked why the GOP didn't seek border wall funding when they had full control of congress. Turns out Trump wanted it in the 2017 Omnibus Spending Bill but Speaker Paul Ryan talked him out of it in favor of increased military spend and promised Trump he'd get the funding through by other means. Of course as soon as he announced he was retiring he had no power to actually do it. Source

I have always though Paul Ryan was too politically correct to serve the President well. He did a great job getting the votes together on the tax reform plan, etc. but when it came to the really P.C. issues like the wall/fence, he was as feckless and gutless as a lot of Republicans. They, and the Democrats all know it is the right thing to do both as a national security measure to make it easier to maintain national security and as a humanitarian issue. But because the leftist media and talking heads can make it look so 'racist' for political purposes and the right thing be damned, they are unwilling to put themselves out there and do the right thing.
 
Numerous comments on DP have asked why the GOP didn't seek border wall funding when they had full control of congress. Turns out Trump wanted it in the 2017 Omnibus Spending Bill but Speaker Paul Ryan talked him out of it in favor of increased military spend and promised Trump he'd get the funding through by other means. Of course as soon as he announced he was retiring he had no power to actually do it. Source

Lol! You bought that bull?
 
Numerous comments on DP have asked why the GOP didn't seek border wall funding when they had full control of congress. Turns out Trump wanted it in the 2017 Omnibus Spending Bill but Speaker Paul Ryan talked him out of it in favor of increased military spend and promised Trump he'd get the funding through by other means. Of course as soon as he announced he was retiring he had no power to actually do it. Source

Well as you know, I am no Paul Ryan fan.
Good riddance to bad rubbish. WI. can have his self-serving ass back.
 
The op-ed in the OP quotes the dailycaller quoting Trump.

Let's see, can Trump or the dailycaller be accused of telling the truth?

Either way, the op-ed is calling something a crisis that isn't, though it does hint that the money Trump demanded would only fund building a small portion. Then it has to be guarded 24/7, which itself will require continuous funding.

Edit : Extra credit : name a southern border congressperson of either party that supports Trump's ego monument.
 
I have always though Paul Ryan was too politically correct to serve the President well. He did a great job getting the votes together on the tax reform plan, etc. but when it came to the really P.C. issues like the wall/fence, he was as feckless and gutless as a lot of Republicans. They, and the Democrats all know it is the right thing to do both as a national security measure to make it easier to maintain national security and as a humanitarian issue. But because the leftist media and talking heads can make it look so 'racist' for political purposes and the right thing be damned, they are unwilling to put themselves out there and do the right thing.

I pretty much agree with your comments. You know term limits would eliminate much of this behavior. The people you elect would be more interested in getting done what they promised their constituents than becoming spineless to insure their coffers get filled by special interest groups for their next election.
 
I have always though Paul Ryan was too politically correct to serve the President well. He did a great job getting the votes together on the tax reform plan, etc. but when it came to the really P.C. issues like the wall/fence, he was as feckless and gutless as a lot of Republicans. They, and the Democrats all know it is the right thing to do both as a national security measure to make it easier to maintain national security and as a humanitarian issue. But because the leftist media and talking heads can make it look so 'racist' for political purposes and the right thing be damned, they are unwilling to put themselves out there and do the right thing.

LOL! How delightfully delusional.

No, what the democrats actually know is that the wall is useless as Trump has proposed it, based on a mnemnotic device created for Donnie on the campaign trail because he's to feeble to remember things.
 
The op-ed in the OP quotes the dailycaller quoting Trump.

Let's see, can Trump or the dailycaller be accused of telling the truth?

Either way, the op-ed is calling something a crisis that isn't, though it does hint that the money Trump demanded would only fund building a small portion. Then it has to be guarded 24/7, which itself will require continuous funding.

Edit : Extra credit : name a southern border congressperson of either party that supports Trump's ego monument.

Hmm -- Trump or the Daily Caller?

That's like asking to choose between gonorrhea or syphilis. You don't want a strong connection with either.
 
Regardless of who made the call, Trump had the full Congress for the last two years. He was the ****ing Commander in Chief. He could have made the call. Ryan and the rest of his ass-sniffers would have done whatever he told them to do.
 
Regardless of who made the call, Trump had the full Congress for the last two years. He was the ****ing Commander in Chief. He could have made the call. Ryan and the rest of his ass-sniffers would have done whatever he told them to do.

The cult of Trump maintains that Trump is not at fault for the failures of Trump.

It's a religion, man!
 
I pretty much agree with your comments. You know term limits would eliminate much of this behavior. The people you elect would be more interested in getting done what they promised their constituents than becoming spineless to insure their coffers get filled by special interest groups for their next election.

Term limits aren't magic. When their time is short (lame ducks) they stuff their pockets and act as blatant lobbyist's hacks. More often than not, anyway.
 
I’m no fan of former speaker Eddie Munster — er, Paul Ryan — but if it’s Trump making the claim, I can reasonably assume it’s weapons grade bull****. Trump will throw ANYONE under the bus, especially if it’s someone who can’t do anything against him anymore.
 
The op-ed in the OP quotes the dailycaller quoting Trump.

Let's see, can Trump or the dailycaller be accused of telling the truth?

Either way, the op-ed is calling something a crisis that isn't, though it does hint that the money Trump demanded would only fund building a small portion. Then it has to be guarded 24/7, which itself will require continuous funding.

Edit : Extra credit : name a southern border congressperson of either party that supports Trump's ego monument.

Got anything to add other than your habitual "I hate Trump" babble? Rhetorical question we all KNOW The answer.
 
Republicans in Congress weren't pushing for the wall because:

1. They knew it was unpopular
2. They knew it was ineffective relative to other ways of securing the border
3. They knew Democrats wouldn't go for it without concessions
4. They knew the concessions required would be far worse (from a conservative perspective) than the benefits of a wall

But Trump doesn't get political reality or basic logic so here we are.
 
I pretty much agree with your comments. You know term limits would eliminate much of this behavior. The people you elect would be more interested in getting done what they promised their constituents than becoming spineless to insure their coffers get filled by special interest groups for their next election.

I have personally struggled with the concept of term limits. We see the utter idiocy of some of the newcomers to Washington who have no clue of economics or history or any realistic kind of sense of cause and effect, let alone any real knowledge or expertise in identifying enemies of the USA both within and from the outside. There is a wealth of real solid expertise and knowledge currently in Congress and I don't know whether it is advisable to replace that with the know nothings. We could be electing a lot of incompetents who would be at the mercy of professional faceless bureaucrats who are elected by nobody and accountable to nobody.

If we could find a way to put a process in place to reduce or eliminate the ability of those elected to enrich themselves at our expense, perhaps only the truly committed public servants would choose to make a sort of career of Congress or at least would stick around long enough to mentor the know nothings coming in. But fat chance on getting them to agree to that system which would have to include:

1. They fund their 401K just like everybody else does and no tax dollars would ever be allowed for their retirement during or after their service. If it means increasing salaries because of the high cost of being in Washington DC, so be it.

2. They fund their own healthcare buying insurance on the open market just like the rest of us do.

3. They personally are subject to every regulation and law they pass. No exemptions.

4. Nobody in Congress would be able to take any kind of lobbyist job for 5, maybe 10 years after leaving Congress.

5. Congress will pass no law that benefits any person, group, demographic, etc. that does not benefit all. Humanitarian exception can be made when the government needs to intervene in a specific case; i.e. a congressional resolution to correct a specific injustice done to some individual, but the details and limitations on that could be worked out.

6. All federal courts will restrict their rulings to the existing law and Constitution. The court can rule a law is unconstitutional or incompatible with other existing laws with their reasons for the ruling, but it is up to the legislative body that passed it to then change the law. An unelected, unaccountable judge would not be allowed to make any law, negate any law, make any changes in any law. The issue would be clearly publicized, along with arguments as to why a court was likely wrong, so we the people could hold those we elected accountable to follow the Constitution. Congress or any other legislative body would not be able to use the federal courts to absolve them of their responsibility.

7. If members of Congress want to redecorate/refurbish/buy new stuff for their offices, they will need to pay for it out of pocket or raise the funds to do it. Otherwise they can make do with inexpensive and very austere basic government issue or choose something out of the acres of discarded furniture, etc. (We have acres and acres of warehouses filled with discarded perfectly good furniture, equipment, and decor as each new member of Congress buys all new stuff at taxpayer expense and does it again at intervals.)

8. Other than the basic operating expenses of the various departments of government (heat, light, phones, computers, etc.), the Congress will not bundle together bills for projects and various funding of services but will vote straight up or down ON THE RECORD each item they pass that costs the taxpayers money. And there will be no more provision for changing a vote after it is recorded as there is now, and they wont be able to 'revise and extend' their official remarks before the Senate or House as they can now.

There is no way in hell the Congress would pass those recommendations. But if they did, we would again be electing true public servants to high office who would serve for a time and then return home to live under the laws they pass as the Founders intended. Paul Ryan would likely have been a magnificent leader.

Instead we have a permanent political class, professional politicians who achieve high office, usually as middle class, and then leave it multi-millionaires many times over. Why else would they spend millions to get a job that pays less than $200k? They long ago stopped representing we the people. The only difference between them are the people they represent and they throw their respective constituencies just enough bones to keep them voting 'correctly' and spend most of their time benefiting themselves.
 
Numerous comments on DP have asked why the GOP didn't seek border wall funding when they had full control of congress. Turns out Trump wanted it in the 2017 Omnibus Spending Bill but Speaker Paul Ryan talked him out of it in favor of increased military spend and promised Trump he'd get the funding through by other means. Of course as soon as he announced he was retiring he had no power to actually do it. Source

This is not news, but Trump did put the military first, he was shocked at what a wreck he found thanks to Obama and a couple of Congresses mismanagement.
 
Republicans in Congress weren't pushing for the wall because:

1. They knew it was unpopular
2. They knew it was ineffective relative to other ways of securing the border
3. They knew Democrats wouldn't go for it without concessions
4. They knew the concessions required would be far worse (from a conservative perspective) than the benefits of a wall

But Trump doesn't get political reality or basic logic so here we are.
/thread
 
Regardless of who made the call, Trump had the full Congress for the last two years. He was the ****ing Commander in Chief. He could have made the call. Ryan and the rest of his ass-sniffers would have done whatever he told them to do.

I always thought you had a modicum of intelligence, even if I've almost always disagreed with you. Imagine my disappointment to find out I was wrong...about your intelligence.

Trump has never "had the full Congress for the last two years".
 
I pretty much agree with your comments. You know term limits would eliminate much of this behavior. The people you elect would be more interested in getting done what they promised their constituents than becoming spineless to insure their coffers get filled by special interest groups for their next election.
But there's a flip-side to one-term elections: the elected has no accountability to the People that would come from another election. They can line their pockets with impunity.
 
But there's a flip-side to one-term elections: the elected has no accountability to the People that would come from another election. They can line their pockets with impunity.

Yep, and the higher the level of office then the more true that becomes.
 
Hmm -- Trump or the Daily Caller?

That's like asking to choose between gonorrhea or syphilis. You don't want a strong connection with either.

I'm pretty sure Trump might be in end stage syphilitic dementia.
 
But there's a flip-side to one-term elections: the elected has no accountability to the People that would come from another election. They can line their pockets with impunity.

Term limits doesn't have to mean just one term. Something like 3 terms for House reps and a limit of two terms for senators. I also think eliminating some of their retirement bennies would also be advantageous.
 
Term limits doesn't have to mean just one term. Something like 3 terms for House reps and a limit of two terms for senators. I also think eliminating some of their retirement bennies would also be advantageous.
Ah, O.K. Thanks for the clarification.

I still get nervous with lame ducks, though. If they are virtuous, the are removed from the political shackles that may bind them from fully voting their conscience. But if they're nefarious, they can do all kinds of untoward things.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom