• 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!

Paul Ryan Not Running

The bad thing about this? this clears the way for Paul Nehlen, an antisemite and Ryan's primary opposition, to be his replacement in the district.

Randy Bryce is the one to replace Ryan.
 
You have absolutely no idea of the following:

1. What the cost was of Miami University for Speaker Ryan
2. How much Ryan in fact received in SS benefits for the 6 years he collected them

And until you do, you are discussing nothing. Your assumptions are not facts. Please remember that.

If Ryan started college at 18 that would have been 1988. Miami of Ohio tuition and fees around that time frame run about $8,000 a year.

http://miamioh.edu/_files/documents/oir/fbook/08-09/tuition/history-in-state-tuition-fees.pdf

Room and board and other fees more than double the above costs. I know this from countless college searches with my daughters. That's around 16k a year. I've already posted to you the link to Ryan's Wikipedia page, in which it states Ryan received SSSB for 2 years, not 6. To have had SSSB pay all of his college he would have received around $32,000 plus a year during those 2 years.
Do you honestly believe SSSB would pay a minor that amount of money a year ??
 
If Ryan started college at 18 that would have been 1988. Miami of Ohio tuition and fees around that time frame run about $8,000 a year.

http://miamioh.edu/_files/documents/oir/fbook/08-09/tuition/history-in-state-tuition-fees.pdf

Room and board and other fees more than double the above costs. I know this from countless college searches with my daughters. That's around 16k a year. I've already posted to you the link to Ryan's Wikipedia page, in which it states Ryan received SSSB for 2 years, not 6. To have had SSSB pay all of his college he would have received around $32,000 plus a year during those 2 years.
Do you honestly believe SSSB would pay a minor that amount of money a year ??

How many times does someone have to say "not all of his college"? Ryan never claimed it paid all of his college.

I got $9600 per year starting in 1981. He would have received at least that same amount. What point are you trying to make? SS helped Ryan pay for his college. Irrefutable fact. That's what we're discussing here.
 
I agree with you and your friend. Another poster on here said something about how Trump could hold 100% of Reagan policies and I wouldn't vote for him. First off, Trump is no Reagan, never could be Reagan, never will be Reagan. Trump's "policies" are those of fear and anger and paranoia, and Reagan's weren't. Secondly, like you and your friend, I find him to be so offensive as a person, I couldn't vote for him no matter what. Presidents are supposed to be great leaders. Trump fails in every which way possible. He isn't likeable. He doesn't inspire people. He is by all definitions an "ugly American" and a manipulator of the weak. He can't be out of office soon enough for me.

LOL, I like the phrase Ugly American. Very true to the fact Trump isn't Reagan and could never be Reagan. Likeability aside. Reagan knew politics and he just let the obnoxious political rhetoric about him roll off his back. Never got mad, even smiled about it at times. He never took it personal. Trump takes everything personal. That is dangerous. Throw in the fact Trump has been president for 15 months or so and hasn't learned a darn thing. Reagan, Bill Clinton could connect with the people, everyone, all of us.

Trump only connects with his base. He leaves around 2/3rds of Americans high and dry. Even among those who approve of the job he is doing, a lot of them just don't like the man personally, as an individual. This will come back to haunt him.
 
How many times does someone have to say "not all of his college"? Ryan never claimed it paid all of his college.

I got $9600 per year starting in 1981. He would have received at least that same amount. What point are you trying to make? SS helped Ryan pay for his college. Irrefutable fact. That's what we're discussing here.

Were discussing my response to GDViking's post;

And his college was paid for from SS money from his father's death.

GDViking's post implied all his college was paid for by SSSB. He was wrong, he was corrected.
 
LOL, I like the phrase Ugly American. Very true to the fact Trump isn't Reagan and could never be Reagan. Likeability aside. Reagan knew politics and he just let the obnoxious political rhetoric about him roll off his back. Never got mad, even smiled about it at times. He never took it personal. Trump takes everything personal. That is dangerous. Throw in the fact Trump has been president for 15 months or so and hasn't learned a darn thing. Reagan, Bill Clinton could connect with the people, everyone, all of us.

Trump only connects with his base. He leaves around 2/3rds of Americans high and dry. Even among those who approve of the job he is doing, a lot of them just don't like the man personally, as an individual. This will come back to haunt him.

Haunt him and the entire Republican Party, too!
 
Agree, maybe a Hickenlooper from CO type. Yet most of their list so far is west coast and east coasters..

Give it time. Some Governors, Dayton Minnesota, Bullock Montana, Cooper North Carolina, new but who knows. Senators, Bennet Colorado, John Tester Montana, Warner and Kaine Virginia to name just a few. I haven't any idea if any of those would be interested. The one I like best out of all of those is Tester. Now I'm no Democrat, but I could support any and all of the above whereas I couldn't never ever support a Hillary Clinton.

You also got a young senator with a lot of spunk from Illinois, Tammy Duckworth. She could very well be the next Obama. Tester is but a dream most likely, but Duckworth, she would be hard to beat in my opinion and perhaps the best of the lot.
 
Were discussing my response to GDViking's post;



GDViking's post implied all his college was paid for by SSSB. He was wrong, he was corrected.

We already discussed that. What is it that's so important to you about someone's post? And it has nothing to do with Ryan or that poster pointing out Ryan's hypocrisy.
 
We already discussed that. What is it that's so important to you about someone's post? And it has nothing to do with Ryan or that poster pointing out Ryan's hypocrisy.

I corrected a mistake there by debunking a meme. It's really that simple.
 
Haunt him and the entire Republican Party, too!


The Haunting of the Republican Party has already begun. I would say if the midterm election were held today the democrats would gain 35-40 seats in the house and get this, 2 seats in the senate. In other words the Democrats would control both chambers of congress. There is no way in Hades when a party has 26 seats up for re-election vs. 9 for the other party that the party with 26 seats up could actually gain two seats. But as of today, that is what looks like will happen.

I go by numbers and trends and not by any partisan outlook on these things. If the trend against the GOP congress critters which began in November of last continues and gains a bit of momentum, you could be talking losses in the house reaching 50-60 seats and adding another senator. I wouldn't be surprise to see the Republicans lose Tennessee, Arizona and Nevada.
 
I'm an old goat born right after WWII. I remember when the Democratic Party was known as the big tent party. Nothing much mattered, ideology, race, income, age, you name it. If you said you were a Democrat, by god you were and were welcomed. Of course back then both parties had their liberal and conservative wings, a whole complete different era. No litmus test required.

Yeah, the democrats look like they will cruise to control of the House and the senate isn't out of possibilities. But they will win as you pointed on only a anti-Trump campaign with no ideas, no substance, no solutions to problems, no vision. How well that bodes for the future only time will tell. Here is how Americans view the democrats, only 37% of all Americans think the democratic party stands for something, something of substance, core values in other words. But 52% of all Americans just view the democratic party as being the anti Trump party, no ideas, no substance, no core values, no visions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/page...uestion_18939.xml?uuid=TwsZhmnbEeeUq1sfD_RZ3w

I think being anti-Trump will be enough for this one election. But not for future elections. What the Democrats need to do, instead of going right off the deep end with their ultra liberal agenda, is to listen to the people. It's not hard. Listen to the people. The Democrats didn't in 2010 and that resulted in a 63 seat loss in the house and 6 senate seats. The GOP isn't listening today, they're too busy following Trumpism and paying America as a whole no heed. We'll have another 2010, only in reverse.

When the democrats take back the house, I suggest they better start listening. If not, their span of controlling the house may be shorter than their 2006-2010 reign.

I think you are spot on..

But the reality is that its going to be really tough for the Democrats. Cuz you are right.. they will ride the tide of anti trump.. and the usual midterm bump into Congress. BUT.. that anti trump is seen by the democrats.. even know.. as a mandate to start an ultra liberal agenda. Even know.. you are seeing the liberal part of the party start waxing rhapsodic about gun control.

(in fact, I think that if the democrats make gun control an issue BEFORE the election.. they might find out that they don't get the seats they need to gain control. Gun control is seen as the purview of the ultra left leaning liberal.. which the general public does not stomach well).

So.. the democrats will ride the tide of anti trump into congress... but then they are going to be expected to perform.. which means.. they will have to do a 180.. and instead of being anti trump.. they are going to have to WORK with trump. Which means they are going to have to get an immigration bill that gives them 90% of what they want.. BUT lets trump save face about the wall, and lets trump shoot his mouth off about illegals.. while he signs a bill allow DACA kids to stay.

They are going to have to come up with bills on taxes.. that Trump can say he did..

The same with trade, and the economy. To get these bills passed.. they will have to make trump look good.

That's the problem for them. What will get them reelected as senators and congressman.. will hurt their chances of a democrat winning against Trump if he chooses to run a second term.
 
Give it time. Some Governors, Dayton Minnesota, Bullock Montana, Cooper North Carolina, new but who knows. Senators, Bennet Colorado, John Tester Montana, Warner and Kaine Virginia to name just a few. I haven't any idea if any of those would be interested. The one I like best out of all of those is Tester. Now I'm no Democrat, but I could support any and all of the above whereas I couldn't never ever support a Hillary Clinton.

You also got a young senator with a lot of spunk from Illinois, Tammy Duckworth. She could very well be the next Obama. Tester is but a dream most likely, but Duckworth, she would be hard to beat in my opinion and perhaps the best of the lot.

Dayton from Minnesota is a very good governor but he is not a good speaker. I would vote for him but I don't see him firing up crowds.
 
I think you are spot on..

But the reality is that its going to be really tough for the Democrats. Cuz you are right.. they will ride the tide of anti trump.. and the usual midterm bump into Congress. BUT.. that anti trump is seen by the democrats.. even know.. as a mandate to start an ultra liberal agenda. Even know.. you are seeing the liberal part of the party start waxing rhapsodic about gun control.

(in fact, I think that if the democrats make gun control an issue BEFORE the election.. they might find out that they don't get the seats they need to gain control. Gun control is seen as the purview of the ultra left leaning liberal.. which the general public does not stomach well).

So.. the democrats will ride the tide of anti trump into congress... but then they are going to be expected to perform.. which means.. they will have to do a 180.. and instead of being anti trump.. they are going to have to WORK with trump. Which means they are going to have to get an immigration bill that gives them 90% of what they want.. BUT lets trump save face about the wall, and lets trump shoot his mouth off about illegals.. while he signs a bill allow DACA kids to stay.

They are going to have to come up with bills on taxes.. that Trump can say he did..

The same with trade, and the economy. To get these bills passed.. they will have to make trump look good.

That's the problem for them. What will get them reelected as senators and congressman.. will hurt their chances of a democrat winning against Trump if he chooses to run a second term.

I do think the Democrats will easily gain control of the House based only on an anti-Trump campaign. If the democrats then try their ultra liberal agenda they will probably drive independents who will be the main key to 2018 midterms for them back into the arms of the Republican congressional candidates for 2020.

I have a feeling Trump won't run again. Nothing to base that on but a gut feeling. I don't think the more main stream Republicans, the lifelong Republicans will want him or give him another go around. That they will coalesce around a single challenger. That trump won't have an 18 candidate field where 30-35% wins it for him.
 
Dayton from Minnesota is a very good governor but he is not a good speaker. I would vote for him but I don't see him firing up crowds.

He may not need to if his 2020 opponent is Trump. I think after four years of bombastic, egotism, obnoxiousness, uncouth behavior a quiet speaking candidate who exudes confidence may be all that is needed. Soft spoken candidates have won before, Eisenhower, Carter, Bush I and II. There are some elections that require a charismatic candidate and others in which the electorate is just looking for competence. Pair Dayton with a fire brand VP nominee.
 
If third party people will JUST STOP running the same tired old gambit of exclusively seeking the White House for a while and COMMIT to doing the GENERATIONAL work at the bottom FIRST, putting in people at the local, city, county, state legislature level and then seek posts in both chambers in Congress, THEN they can realistically float a presidential candidate with a real chance of success, and support!

But we've never seen a third party of any kind do that in this country, EVER.
To date, with no exceptions that I can think of in my lifetime, third parties have only served ONE PURPOSE, to act as spoilers who help Republicans by siphoning off would be Democrat voters.

To be fair, third party runs are excellent vehicles for self centered people to run for POTUS and stroke their own egos by appealing to people who want to appear above the fray of ACTUAL politics. See, e.g. Jill Stein....:roll:

See also

The way to get progressive (or 'true conservative'!!!) candidates in office is doing the hard work of getting them to run, backing their campaigns, volunteering, raising money, making hundreds of phone calls, and if/when they lose, do it again and again and again, and get more friends involved, etc. I'm about damn tired of people who whine and cry every 4th year about the awful corporate sell out candidates of both parties but who don't do a damn thing but whine and bitch and cry and vote 3rd party losers. As Tbogg says in that link - Grow the f up...
 
Randy Bryce is the one to replace Ryan.

You realize Paul Ryan's district was the biggest beneficiary of redistricting, right? The only republican that could possibly lose this is Paul Nehlen, and even then, he would be the favorite.
 
The Haunting of the Republican Party has already begun. I would say if the midterm election were held today the democrats would gain 35-40 seats in the house and get this, 2 seats in the senate. In other words the Democrats would control both chambers of congress. There is no way in Hades when a party has 26 seats up for re-election vs. 9 for the other party that the party with 26 seats up could actually gain two seats. But as of today, that is what looks like will happen.

I go by numbers and trends and not by any partisan outlook on these things. If the trend against the GOP congress critters which began in November of last continues and gains a bit of momentum, you could be talking losses in the house reaching 50-60 seats and adding another senator. I wouldn't be surprise to see the Republicans lose Tennessee, Arizona and Nevada.

Tennessee is a good chance for Democrats. We've got a popular former governor running - Phil Bredesen - and last poll I saw had him up 10 points, with about 20% undecided as I recall. That poll is fairly meaningless this far out but in a normal year the "GOP" candidate would beat the "Democratic" candidate in early polls by 20-30 points. Bredesen is a business friendly moderate, former healthcare CEO, tons of money.

Not exactly a "progressive" dream candidate, more like a corporate democrat, but he's social moderate, and won't do anything crazy. Probably not that much daylight between him and Corker on a lot of issues, except he'll answer to a slightly different donor base.
 
You realize Paul Ryan's district was the biggest beneficiary of redistricting, right? The only republican that could possibly lose this is Paul Nehlen, and even then, he would be the favorite.

Which will make it all the sweeter when Randy Bryce wins.
 
You realize Paul Ryan's district was the biggest beneficiary of redistricting, right? The only republican that could possibly lose this is Paul Nehlen, and even then, he would be the favorite.

Democrats are dreaming at night about that white supremacist and anti-Semite being the GOP candidate. He's a true alt-righter, and the anti-Semitism isn't subtle or hidden - he's out front with it. You know you're a white supremacist nutter when you're too far gone for Breitbart, which he is.

And I don't believe he'd be the favorite should he run. If he is, the GOP has reached a new low.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-anti-semitic-tweets/?utm_term=.a8898b385970
 
Give it time. Some Governors, Dayton Minnesota, Bullock Montana, Cooper North Carolina, new but who knows. Senators, Bennet Colorado, John Tester Montana, Warner and Kaine Virginia to name just a few. I haven't any idea if any of those would be interested. The one I like best out of all of those is Tester. Now I'm no Democrat, but I could support any and all of the above whereas I couldn't never ever support a Hillary Clinton.

You also got a young senator with a lot of spunk from Illinois, Tammy Duckworth. She could very well be the next Obama. Tester is but a dream most likely, but Duckworth, she would be hard to beat in my opinion and perhaps the best of the lot.
I hadn't thought of Duckworth as a potential candidate but what wealth of experiences she has had in her life.

People like her have this toughness about them that I respect. Trump on the other hand has led a pampered life and is a true paper tiger.

The only other politician that I can think of that matches her fortitude is Sen Bob Dole.
 
Tennessee is a good chance for Democrats. We've got a popular former governor running - Phil Bredesen - and last poll I saw had him up 10 points, with about 20% undecided as I recall. That poll is fairly meaningless this far out but in a normal year the "GOP" candidate would beat the "Democratic" candidate in early polls by 20-30 points. Bredesen is a business friendly moderate, former healthcare CEO, tons of money.

Not exactly a "progressive" dream candidate, more like a corporate democrat, but he's social moderate, and won't do anything crazy. Probably not that much daylight between him and Corker on a lot of issues, except he'll answer to a slightly different donor base.

What you state is exactly what the hard left or right don't understand. A moderate can win in Tennessee, a full fledged liberal can't. A moderate Republican can win in the Northeast at times, a hard right conservative can't. Susan Collins is prime example of a moderate Republican winning in the northeast, Romney also done it at the governor's level.

Those folks can't afford to follow the party line of ultra liberalism or conservatism and hope to win or get re-elected. That it is better for the party and for either liberalism or conservatism to have a senator who will vote the party line 75-80% of the time than run a candidate that has no chance of winning the general who would vote the party line or ideological line 100% and be replaced by a member of the other party who will vote your way none of the time.

Sometimes I think the hard core of whichever party and ideology are plain stupid or can't see their hand in front of their face. Stupid politically that is. I agree that Phil Bredesen is the favorite at this time.
 
I hadn't thought of Duckworth as a potential candidate but what wealth of experiences she has had in her life.

People like her have this toughness about them that I respect. Trump on the other hand has led a pampered life and is a true paper tiger.

The only other politician that I can think of that matches her fortitude is Sen Bob Dole.

This old Georgia boy likes her. Plenty of time left for names to come out of the woodwork. But I think Duckworth would be very hard to beat. She's scrappy, but in a good sense. She has the background. I wish her better luck than Bob Dole. Bob basically became the Republican sacrificial lamb in 1996.

Find a governor to pair with her. If from a swing state that much the better, but not necessary.
 
Ryan is doing the only sensible thing right now. He is in charge of the Republican party which is about to be placed in a terrible position where it must decide to support either it's President or our Constitution, he obviously does not wish to be involved in this fiasco. Apparently many other Republicans in Congress have much the same idea https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/politics/house-retirement-tracker/index.html and there will be many more now that Ryan has made it OK.
False dichotomy.
 
Back
Top Bottom