• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015 |OT2| Pls print

Status
Not open for further replies.

HylianTom

Banned
I wonder if he [Ryan] knows, deep down inside, that the party needs to be destroyed before it can be rebuilt to be competitive for the new century.

If I'm in his shoes, it might be tempting to ask: "why throw myself onto the grenade to save an already-sinking ship?"
 
Clearly he doesn't want the job.

The question is if there's enough pressure to force him to take it even if he doesn't want it. And the pressure is pretty high when the alternative is the destruction of the party.

Yeah but how exactly is him being Speaker going to prevent this catastrophe from happening? The problem isn't that they just want someone other than Boehner. It's that they want a Speaker who will support them in shutting down the government and not raising the debt ceiling. I don't see Paul Ryan being able to stop that any more effectively than Boehner could.
 
Clearly he doesn't want the job.

The question is if there's enough pressure to force him to take it even if he doesn't want it. And the pressure is pretty high when the alternative is the destruction of the party.

But why would the pressure be high on Ryan specifically? What leverage would they have that could force him to take it?

Paul Ryan, in his current position, is pretty much guaranteed to survive the ongoing self-immolation of the House GOP. So why would he feel the need to cave into pressure from folks like Boehner to supposedly save the party?
 
Paul has the best job in Congress right now. Even when things are good and normal, being head of the House Means and Weighs Committee is the best job in entire Congress. Why would anyone give that up to be speaker.

For one, the chairman has to care more about writing policy that being seen on TV. And as much as Paul gives of Douche vibes, he's a behind the scenes guy, not a TV guy like Newt, for instance.

And why would he give that job up to baby sit everyone? It would destroy any chance of being President in the future, as well.

I just don't get why anyone would give up Ryan's job to be speaker at any time, especially now. This goes for Dems i the same spot.



From a personal perspective, a Paul Ryan led House would scare me a lot more than McCarthy.


But why would the pressure be high on Ryan specifically? What leverage would they have that could force him to take it?

This also makes no sense to me (in that I agree with you). If he becomes speaker, he stops writing most budgetary policy. If he refuses and they remove him from position, he stops writing most budgetary policy. So why would the GOP bother.

Also, the GOP would lose their stronger writer of budgetary policy. This is so dumb...
 

Cheebo

Banned
I don't think it is about whether he wants it or not. He may feel he has no choice but to take it "for the good of the party" even if personally does not want it at all.
 
But why would the pressure be high on Ryan specifically? What leverage would they have that could force him to take it?

Paul Ryan, in his current position, is pretty much guaranteed to survive the ongoing self-immolation of the House GOP. So why would he feel the need to cave into pressure from folks like Boehner to supposedly save the party?

You called it, Bert.

 
Also about Ryan - he represents an Obama district. By a slim margin of course, and he's popular enough as a normal representative that no one seriously challenged him. But if he were to become Speaker he would instantly become the national face of Congress and a far more polarizing figure than he is now. And it would be extremely tempting for the DCCC to pour millions into his district of it meant they get to say they knocked off the Speaker.

Maybe he'll resign lol
 
The underlying circumstances that forced Boehner to resign are still in play. Subsequently, anyone who might replace Boehner has to be able to overcome those same obstacles. I don't see how anyone but a true believer gets elected to the position, that's the whole point of kicking Boehner out.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I actually really fear a Ryan speakership.

Boehner can't leave til someone else takes over. This is good for Dems. Someone more moderate from behind the scenes will have to emerge and if not, they implode.

So do I, but there's also worse choices. He was the lesser of a million evils. So long as Boehner doesn't leave we're fine, but if he leaves and there's no replacement that is not good.
 
So do I, but there's also worse choices. He was the lesser of a million evils. So long as Boehner doesn't leave we're fine, but if he leaves and there's no replacement that is not good.

He actually can't leave. He can resign his congressional seat but so long as no new speaker is voted on, he's the speaker indefinitely, if I understand this correctly.
 

User 406

Banned
He actually can't leave. He can resign his congressional seat but so long as no new speaker is voted on, he's the speaker indefinitely, if I understand this correctly.

My wife said, "You think that man was drinking before?"

31259710.jpg
 
Isn't there some old-ass GOP member who's on the brink of retirement and has hard-right positions on everything but isn't a completely disagreeable jackhole?

Whoever gets this is a Band-Aid anyway.
 
I'm guessing that might need to be updated just a bit for Ben.

538 posted an article today where they argued that Ben Carson and Trump weren't particularly conservative, it was fucking weird.

From ten minutes ago:

Ben Carson and Trump don’t rank as highly conservative in our ideological rankings as most other 2016 candidates. Nor do they rank as super conservative in the minds of Republican voters.

Carson also said "prison rape makes you gay" "Obamacare is worse than 9/11" "we need to go back on the Gold Standard" "Obama is like Hitler" long before August.
 
538 posted an article today where they argued that Ben Carson and Trump weren't particularly conservative, it was fucking weird.

From ten minutes ago:



Carson also said "prison rape makes you gay" "Obamacare is worse than 9/11" "we need to go back on the Gold Standard" "Obama is like Hitler" long before August.

those aren't right wing or even conservative positions (except gold standard), just stupid ones.
 
I was on ESPN a few days ago and noticed a link to a 538 article entitled "Why Old People Die." I didn't click on it, but it perfectly encapsulates that site.
 
This fucking guy. The natural reaction is to run from a gunman. That's not going to change. This isn't like...a few people pulling out box cutters on a plane and demanding everyone sit down during a "hijacking." That shit will never work on a US airline again. Rushing people with knives/box cutters is one thing. Rushing people with guns? Fuckouttahere.
Cue nra citing train attack in France.
 

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok
This fucking guy. The natural reaction is to run from a gunman. That's not going to change. This isn't like...a few people pulling out box cutters on a plane and demanding everyone sit down during a "hijacking." That shit will never work on a US airline again. Rushing people with knives/box cutters is one thing. Rushing people with guns? Fuckouttahere.

One of the things I find objectionable with the pro-gun stance as we see in Carsons comments again is the resignation of multiple casualties. "He can't kill us all". In the same vein as "A good guy with a gun will stop the bad shooter quickly".

It's a position that implies "people died, but it could have been worse, so it's okay, and definitely better than NO GUNS".
 
One of the things I find objectionable with the pro-gun stance as we see in Carsons comments again is the resignation of multiple casualties. "He can't kill us all". In the same vein as "A good guy with a gun will stop the bad shooter quickly".

It's a position that implies "people died, but it could have been worse, so it's okay, and definitely better than NO GUNS".
Eh. Anti Gun people use it all the time in reference to knife attacks. It's just an admission murders will still likely be attempted.
 
I think extreme hatred of gay people, Obama, and Obamacare probably would be counted on the more conservative side (for America at least) though.

Prison rape makes you gay isn't a hatred of gay people. It's fucking stupid. Now, I know Carson actually does hate gay people, but that's not evidence of that. It's plausible to think prison makes you gay but not dislike gay people at all.

Hating Obama/ACA is what conservatives do, it isn't an actual conservative policy position. Hell, the ACA in some ways is a more conservative approach to addressing health care (other that not addressing it).

Take global warming. Not believing in it is something many conservative believe but it's not an actual conservative position. Being against taxes for companies that pollute would be a conservative position.
 
It's easy to say gender has no effect. There are guys who would probably think they're not sexist that are sexist in certain ways they don't realize. The effect of it is not too dissimilar from racism.

Moreover, they couldn't have had the 'same lives' even if swapped. Because Hillary Clinton is a woman.

Having carnal knowledge of Bill Clinton for at least a year* probably changes you in ways that no time machine could ever overcome. There's no way Sanders could relate.


*I'm assuming Bill waited at least a year before moving on to mistresses full-time.
 
In the hours before House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) abruptly withdrew his candidacy to be the next speaker of the House, he was sent an email from a conservative activist threatening to expose an alleged affair with a colleague. The subject line: “Kevin, why not resign like Bob Livingston?”

The email, sent just after 8 a.m. on Thursday, came from Steve Baer, a Chicago-based GOP donor known for mass-emailing conservative figures and Republican lawmakers. It was addressed to McCarthy and numerous others, including the personal account of Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.), who conservative media sites have suggested is tied romantically to McCarthy.

McCarthy has brushed off the affair allegation. After announcing that he would not seek the speaker's post on Thursday, he was asked about Wednesday's cryptic letter from Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), which asked that "any candidate for speaker of the House, majority leader, and majority whip withdraw himself from the leadership election if there are any misdeeds he has committed since joining Congress that will embarrass himself, the Republican conference, and the House of Representatives if they become public."

"No. No. Come on," said McCarthy. His decision to withdraw, he said, was to ensure that fellow GOP members didn't have a tough vote. "For us to unite, we probably need a fresh face," he said.

But the existence of the Baer email, passed to The Huffington Post by a source, shows that there were personal threats being made prior to McCarthy's abrupt announcement.

In the email, Baer linked to a Washington Examiner story published earlier Thursday with the headline: “Specter of sex scandal injected into GOP leadership race.” The article referenced Jones’ letter in the context of Speaker-elect Bob Livingston abruptly resigning in 1998 following a sex scandal.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...allegations_5616f004e4b0082030a1e0a8?zdpo80k9

Chicago, you say?
yzOGp6d.png
 

tmarg

Member
Take global warming. Not believing in it is something many conservative believe but it's not an actual conservative position. Being against taxes for companies that pollute would be a conservative position.

Not believing in global warming is a thing conservatives believe because it is the only way to justify conservative policy that is obviously fundamentally flawed otherwise. It is a conservative position because there is absolutely no other reason to take it.
 
Speaking of the party using "leverage" on its members, is there any way the Democrats can arrange to send horse's heads to Chafee, Webb and O'Malley with the implication that they should under no circumstances bring up Hillary's emails during the debates, or things could go very badly?

I'm just saying all options should be on the table.
 
Not believing in global warming is a thing conservatives believe because it is the only way to justify conservative policy that is obviously fundamentally flawed otherwise. It is a conservative position because there is absolutely no other reason to take it.

But that's not true. Numerous GOPers accept it but proclaim it's not worth the cost to do anything or there isn't sufficient evidence to show that X policy works or the rest of the world won't go along so it's not worth it.

There are more conservative responses to it, though. Like Tradeable permits (which I generally like) is a conservative reaction whereas straight up regulatory caps are liberal (with taxes somewhere in between though more liberal).

It's just an incorrect viewpoint, not a conservative one. Just like thinking the Earth is 6000 years old.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Everybody thought Kevin McCarthy was unbeatable, right? But then we actually heard him speak. What are his numbers today? He's dropping out. Why? Because he's un-trustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen.
 
I'd like to point out the GOP is the only conservative party in the First World that denies climate change. Even the Australian conservatives admit climate change is happening, they just think a carbon tax makes Australia noncompetitive and that's their official reasoning for scrapping it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom