• 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!

Does Paul Ryan's vote for the fiscal cliff deal hurt his chances?

See above.

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 42.9%
  • No

    Votes: 4 28.6%
  • He was never going to be the nominee anyway.

    Votes: 4 28.6%

  • Total voters
    14

Einzige

Elitist as Hell.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
2,655
Reaction score
942
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Of all the possible 2016 Republican nominees yet considered, Ryan probably has the strongest governing credentials, namely real experience in an important legislative body. In comparison to other Congressmen like the himbo Rubio, he doesn't really have any competition on the experience front.

He's also an ideologue. Until today, I'd have said he was the most by-the-book conservative the Republicans could nominate four years from now. However, with his recent minority vote for the fiscal cliff plan, I may have to revise my consideration of the man.
 
They certainly SHOULD be damaged by this vote. This bill stunk to high heaven. Never should have been passed.
 
I doubt it would hurt his theoretical chances any more than anything else. This is only round 1. The real fight comes in February and it will be bloody awful in comparison. I do not see Congress abdicating its authority to set the debt ceiling to the WH permanently or accepting any more tax increases.
 
It's about time for some taxes to pay for our wars.
 
Paul Ryan has no chances. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Bupkis. Never happen. No ****ing way. Pipe dream. Not a chance in hell.

Give it up, Ryan. You are waaaaaaaaaay too far from middle ground. You represent the outer edge. The outer edge of either ruling party is decidedly not what America wants. We need less nutters and effing crazies and more mainstream Americans running for public office. Ryan is a lightening rod for desperate sheeple.

Jesus Christ! Partisan sycophants and toadies (both parties) are already lining up for 2016. Hillary and Ryan! That is bull**** and stupid. It damned sure isn't thinking outside of the ****ed up 2 party box.
 
In the past I might have actually looked past his last name and considered him as a potential candidate for POTUS. Now I wouldn't vote for him under ANY conditions. Not for POTUS or any other office.
 
In the past I might have actually looked past his last name and considered him as a potential candidate for POTUS. Now I wouldn't vote for him under ANY conditions. Not for POTUS or any other office.

What's wrong with his last name, Tigger?
 
In the past I might have actually looked past his last name and considered him as a potential candidate for POTUS. Now I wouldn't vote for him under ANY conditions. Not for POTUS or any other office.

Tigger, Tigger, Tigger, what did he do wrong?:boohoo:
 
Paul Ryan has no chances. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Bupkis. Never happen. No ****ing way. Pipe dream. Not a chance in hell.

Give it up, Ryan. You are waaaaaaaaaay too far from middle ground. You represent the outer edge. The outer edge of either ruling party is decidedly not what America wants. We need less nutters and effing crazies and more mainstream Americans running for public office. Ryan is a lightening rod for desperate sheeple.

LOL. Ryan's biggest problem is likely to be with the far-end CONSERVATIVES rather than the more moderates.
 
LOL. Ryan's biggest problem is likely to be with the far-end CONSERVATIVES rather than the more moderates.

Who the Hell are they going to run, the corpse of Grover Cleveland?

There comes a time when you accept that a representative form of government sometimes requires politicians to vote for legislation they are opposed to rhetorically because no ideology actually aligns perfectly with the basic structure of reality. I don't love Paul Ryan - far from it - but you're seriously going to condemn him as a liberal for a single procedural vote?
 
What's wrong with his last name, Tigger?

His last name related him to a LIBERAL-tarian quack doctor who I wouldn't vote for if he was the last person on earth.

Tigger, Tigger, Tigger, what did he do wrong?:boohoo:

He voted to increase taxes WITHOUT FORCING SPENDING back into its Constitutional limits.
 
His last name related him to a LIBERAL-tarian quack doctor who I wouldn't vote for if he was the last person on earth.

Uh....

What in holy Hell are you talking about? 'Paul' is Paul Ryan's first name, and he is of no relation to Ron Paul.
 
It's about time for some taxes to pay for our wars.

Right, as long as it is not you that is asked to pay more taxes. The hypocracy of the left is amazing. Since this was a spending bill, a big tax reduction for 98+% of the people, why was it "exempted", as is now usual, from any "pay as you go" rules/laws or logic?

In the name of defict reduction, we voted to increase the defict - to save "the economy", of course, we must borrow and spend rather than tax and spend. If borrowing only $1 trillion per year is good, then is borrowing $2 trillion per year even better?
 
Do you ever actually stay on-topic in a thread you're posting in, ttwtt?
 
Who the Hell are they going to run, the corpse of Grover Cleveland?

Ghenghis Khan. That or Duke William of Normandy.

There comes a time when you accept that a representative form of government sometimes requires politicians to vote for legislation they are opposed to rhetorically because no ideology actually aligns perfectly with the basic structure of reality.

Even if I was to agree with that concept, which I don't, but for the sake of the discussion, I will agree to..... Raising taxes on the people who actually put something into the system, while increasing spending on those who do nothing but take out of the system sounds like a pretty significant bit of ideology to be ignoring. At least in my mind.

I don't love Paul Ryan - far from it - but you're seriously going to condemn him as a liberal for a single procedural vote?

Yes, I am seriously going to condemn him for a single vote of any sort.
 
Right, as long as it is not you that is asked to pay more taxes. The hypocracy of the left is amazing. Since this was a spending bill, a big tax reduction for 98+% of the people, why was it "exempted", as is now usual, from any "pay as you go" rules/laws or logic?

In the name of defict reduction, we voted to increase the defict - to save "the economy", of course, we must borrow and spend rather than tax and spend. If borrowing only $1 trillion per year is good, then is borrowing $2 trillion per year even better?

I don't mind paying more taxes. I am not greedy. I am patriotic.:2usflag:
 
Uh.... What in holy Hell are you talking about? 'Paul' is Paul Ryan's first name, and he is of no relation to Ron Paul.

For some reason, I was confusing Paul Ryan with Rand Paul.... Both individuals who I wouldn't help out of a burning car considering their voting records.
 
Even if I was to agree with that concept, which I don't, but for the sake of the discussion, I will agree to..... Raising taxes on the people who actually put something into the system, while increasing spending on those who do nothing but take out of the system sounds like a pretty significant bit of ideology to be ignoring. At least in my mind.

That's a very dumb way of looking at it.

You've said yourself that you don't think conservatism ought to be about small government, all the time. Some conservatives agree with you. Many prefer social stability, "the trains running on time", to minarchism, and I'd agree that that viewpoint is more authentically conservative. Given a choice between immediate social chaos and a tax hike, a lot of these etatist conservatives would choose the hike.

Now, Paul Ryan never really billed himself as an authoritarian conservative, but surely he can sell himself as one if push comes to shove.
 
LOL. Ryan's biggest problem is likely to be with the far-end CONSERVATIVES rather than the more moderates.

Certainly from where you stand politically I can understand how you might have that perspective. Ryan is on the outer edge of conservatism. You passed Ryan on your rush to the reactionary right long, long ago. There's middle ground, there's right of center, there's far right, there's extreme right, there's reality. You are beyond that and to the right.
 
I don't mind paying more taxes. I am not greedy. I am patriotic.:2usflag:

Show us the last volunatry contribution to reduce the national debt that you made, then I will actually believe you. Everyone was waving the flag, and chanting USA, USA, USA..., but no taxes were raised to "pay for" the huge increase in federal spending/power used in response to 9/11/2001. Patriotism is not wanting ever more federal cost and power, but nice try. ;)
 
Show us the last volunatry contribution to reduce the national debt that you made, then I will actually believe you. Everyone was waving the flag, and chanting USA, USA, USA..., but no taxes were raised to "pay for" the huge increase in federal spending/power used in response to 9/11/2001. Patriotism is not wanting ever more federal cost and power, but nice try. ;)

Nobody gives the government money voluntarily. That would be silly.

I was talking about taxes.
 
Nobody gives the government money voluntarily. That would be silly.

I was talking about taxes.

Giving taxes to the gov't is patriotic, yet doing so voluntarily is silly? That, my friend, is a very, very lame position; so it must be more patriotic to await the draft than to volunteer for military service too. Hmm...
 
Either get back on the subject of Paul Ryan's prospects or get out of my thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom