Jump to content

Paul Ryan is reported as NOT seeking re-election.

ROFL BOX

By ROFL BOX
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

ROFL BOX

ROFL BOX 6647

Posted
  • Author
Posted

From NYT article about Paul Ryan not running:


This says a lot about how crazy Trump's Republicans have become. “Back in his Southeastern Wisconsin district, Mr. Ryan was facing a spirited challenge from two Democrats, Randy Bryce, better known by his Twitter handle, “Iron Stache,” and a schoolteacher, Cathy Myers.

On his right flank, an avowed anti-Semite, Paul Nehlen, was making another run at the Republican nomination — and earning a national following among white supremacists.”


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15469

Posted
Posted (edited)

Goddammit, Hugo--no, he's not.  The Presidential Succession Act is unconstitutional.

Whatever--back to the point at hand: what a huge blow to congressional Republicans.  You're going to see a ton more House Reps decide to take that sweet, sweet K Street lobby gig  rather than fight for reelection.

The real question is whether Paul Ryan will now grow a spine and become woke like Trey Gowdy now that he doesn't have to face the MAGA crowd at the ballot box again.

Edited by Ghost of LL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Whatever--back to the point at hand: what a huge blow to congressional Republicans.  You're going to see a ton more House Reps decide to take that sweet, sweet K Street lobby gig  rather than fight for reelection.

That's why the tax bill happened.  It's the Republican politician retirement plan, and they're wasting no time in getting that payoff.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Goddammit, Hugo--no, he's not.  The Presidential Succession Act is unconstitutional.

Whatever--back to the point at hand: what a huge blow to congressional Republicans.  You're going to see a ton more House Reps decide to take that sweet, sweet K Street lobby gig  rather than fight for reelection.

The real question is whether Paul Ryan will now grow a spine and become woke like Trey Gowdy now that he doesn't have to face the MAGA crowd at the ballot box again.

Hahaha. Paul Ryan will never be woke. He is just bowing out to avoid scrutiny.  After Trump goes down, a Dem house will be investigating errbody, but they might not bother with those who already stepped down. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pescado_Rojo

Pescado_Rojo 19330

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Wait, I’m not disagreeing with you but are you saying there’s no way Paul Ryan can become president before 2020?

I’m all ears.

He's going to be Trump's Gerald Ford. Pence will resign "to focus on his family" when he finds out the Russians have videos of him touching another man's penis. Trump resigns or is removed from office, President Ryan pardons Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

He's going to be Trump's Gerald Ford. Pence will resign "to focus on his family" when he finds out the Russians have videos of him touching another man's penis. Trump resigns or is removed from office, President Ryan pardons Trump.

Seems like Pence issuing all the pardons and immediately resigning would be the move.

Ryan pardons Pence if necessary 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21097

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

He's going to be Trump's Gerald Ford. Pence will resign "to focus on his family" when he finds out the Russians have videos of him touching another man's penis. Trump resigns or is removed from office, President Ryan pardons Trump.

Pence’ favorite movie:  Touching Ryan’s Privates

  • Like 4
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
yaqdum

yaqdum 182

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

You're going to see a ton more House Reps decide to take that sweet, sweet K Street lobby gig  rather than fight for reelection.

yes, and we are going to see key members of both houses who have proved to be unwilling -- or unable -- to go to bat for the republic hang it up.  reason: their time in the barrel is nigh, and the things they've done/have been doing are both kompromat for the rooskies, keeping them in line, and grist for mueller's mill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aqua Buddha

Aqua Buddha 14501

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

He's going to be Trump's Gerald Ford. Pence will resign "to focus on his family" when he finds out the Russians have videos of him touching another man's penis. Trump resigns or is removed from office, President Ryan pardons Trump.

I'll laugh if the timeline gets messed up and we have President Pelosi granting the pardons.

Fox News will be in full on nuclear meltdown....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Aqua Buddha said:

I'll laugh if the timeline gets messed up and we have President Pelosi granting the pardons.

Fox News will be in full on nuclear meltdown....

Why will anyone be granting pardons?  Trump isnt going to resign in disgrace prior to impeachment like Nixon. He will be going through full House impeachment and Senate removal proceedings. Nobody will be pardoning anyone after that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15469

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Wait, I’m not disagreeing with you but are you saying there’s no way Paul Ryan can become president before 2020?

I’m all ears.

The Constitution empowers Congress to "by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President . . . ."  U.S. Const. Art. II, sec. 1, cl. 6.  So only "Officers" can be in the line of succession.  Everywhere the term is used, "Officer" is defined as members of the Executive Branch.  Id. at Art. II, sec. 2, cl. 2.  And when you think about it--it violates the separation of power to have a member of the Legislative Branch able to step in and become president.  

But sadly Squish is right--

35 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Well I'm not positive on this, but I'm fairly certain GoLL isn't on the Supreme Court so his opinion, correct as it may be, doesn't rule out the possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

It actually is a job well done by Ryan, because this was always the goal.  It's the cherry on top of one of the greatest scams ever pulled in politics, going back all the way to Reagan.  Getting the useful idiots onboard is always easy, but they've put two generations of work into successfully convincing smart professionals that the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility and that, at worst, "both sides" are equally to blame.   They've sold "borrow and spend" as a replacement for "tax and spend" without anyone even realizing it.  That is a real achievement. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Degenerate Gardner

Degenerate Gardner 4081

Posted
Posted

Ryan not running again, coupled with his recent trip to Prague advocating for hacker Nikulin's extradition, really makes me wonder what's gotten into the little fella.  We can rule out conscience - he doesn't have one.  Ryan's self-interest must somehow be aligned with these surprising moves.  Can't wait for the big reveal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4042

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

The Constitution empowers Congress to "by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President . . . ."  U.S. Const. Art. II, sec. 1, cl. 6.  So only "Officers" can be in the line of succession.  Everywhere the term is used, "Officer" is defined as members of the Executive Branch.  Id. at Art. II, sec. 2, cl. 2.  And when you think about it--it violates the separation of power to have a member of the Legislative Branch able to step in and become president.  

But sadly Squish is right--

It's very likely a political question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Viper

Viper 12018

Posted
Posted

Amash has some interesting ideas about the way forward

Quote

Amash: People at home can vote new people in, but at the end of the day the speaker of the House has a lot of authority. I think you need the right speaker of the House in there. We don't have that right now. We didn't have it with the previous speaker either. We're certainly not going to have it with Nancy Pelosi.

Gillespie: You don't want to bring Dennis Hastert back.

Amash: We don't want to bring Hastert back.

Gillespie: He's done.

Amash: There are no speakers on the horizon, whether it's the current speaker or Nancy Pelosi, who are going to fix this problem. The speaker has to protect the institution. The speaker of the House is not doing that. The speaker of the House is in the business of protecting members of Congress right now, protecting them from themselves. He and previous speakers go out of their way to prevent us from voting on things. They don't want us to go on the record. If there's a war, they want that war to be fought without members of Congress having any input, because then afterwards you can decide whether you supported it or opposed it. You can decide after the fact. Did it go well? OK, I was for it. Did it go poorly? Oh, I was against that the whole time. That's what they want on everything, whether it's trade, whether it's wars. They don't want members of Congress to do their jobs. The speaker has not been protecting the institution. You need a speaker in there who is an institutionalist, who cares about the institution first, who is not a partisan. Let the House work its will. Let legislation come to the floor. Let Republicans and Democrats and others offer their amendments, and let's have votes on all sorts of things, substantive things, not just post offices like they do now....

This is what drives me crazy. They don't want to have any failures. They want everything to be rigged. They want to know in advance this is going to fail or this is going to pass. If it's going to fail they don't put it on the floor, but, actually, we should have a process where things can fail, where the American people can see, "This vote was put up, it didn't pass," and we move onto something else. We try something else. At the end of the day if you let the House work its will, libertarians aren't going to be happy with a whole lot of things. There'll be a lot of things we're upset up about. Republicans aren't going to be happy about everything. Democrats aren't going to be happy about everything. But we create a market, we create a mechanism for people to make corrections so people at home can see what happened and make adjustments saying, "I don't like this guy. I don't like the way he's voting. I'm going to vote for someone else." It allows someone like me, who has libertarian ideas, to bring those to the floor and present them and have a debate because right now we very rarely get to debate our ideas. I want to be able to go to the floor every day to debate libertarian ideas and present them and have the American people judge whether people made the right vote or the wrong vote on my amendment or my bill.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4042

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

That's not a political question at all.  It depends on a plain-text reading of the Constitution, and I don't see how it fits any of the scenarios identified in Baker.  

There's even a mechanism for bring that challenge: quo warrento.  

Technically speaking you're not wrong, but practically/functionally speaking I hardly believe there's a court that would be willing to rule on such a case (at least that was the impression I came away with in reading an article by Steven G. Calabresi several years back, and I'm no fan of his by any means), and that's what you're left with. Of course, if you could find a court that's willing, that political question stuff is moot (which is why I said "likely"). By no means is it in the same ballpark as impeachment/removal.

Edited by hpslugga
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15469

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Technically speaking you're not wrong, but practically/functionally speaking I hardly believe there's a court that would be willing to rule on such a case (at least that was the impression I came away with in reading an article by Steven G. Calabresi several years back, and I'm no fan of his by any means), and that's what you're left with. Of course, if you could find a court that's willing, that political question stuff is moot (which is why I said "likely"). By no means is it in the same ballpark as impeachment/removal.

I'm not sure, and I'm not going to look it up, but I have some vague recollection that the federal statute allows a quo warranto suit to be brought directly to the Supreme Court, and I don't think the Supreme Court has discretion not to take it (as it does in other appeals, which require a writ of certiorari).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4042

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, thrillhammer said:

because he's a bully, unethical, and an idiot.  the gop could have done a better job of correcting, or redirecting trump.  he was new at this politics thang and it was a training opportunity. but they all just buckled and got in line.

Where do they differ ideologically? Yeah, he is a bully, unethical and an idiot like you say, but where do he and Ryan diverge politically? Trump served as Ryan's useful idiot to distract people from what Ryan and his cohorts were doing in Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mapache

Mapache 1117

Posted
Posted
Mrs. Betty Bowers‏ @BettyBowers
Paul Ryan may go, but we’ll always have this incredibly tone-deaf, stupid tweet. Given how corrupt America is in monetizing political access, I have a hunch Ryan’s pay will go up more than enough to buy a Costco membership. Indeed, he’ll probably be able to buy Costco.
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GSU&UT

GSU&UT 1798

Posted
Posted

I'm sure there will be a few centrist/libertarians who think this is hyperbole, but it is the truth. Ryan, while maybe not exactly thinking in terms of "how can I fuck over the poor and disabled" did exactly just that, no question.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SquishMitten

SquishMitten 10397

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

It's very likely a political question.

I don't know if "political" is the best description. It should be a plain-reading question. But I would expect it to come down to a determination of "intent," which is a woefully inadequate word for this particular issue. One one side you have what GoLL said, that it doesn't jive with separation of powers. On the other, it seems contrary to our country's basic ideals for a non-elected official (i.e., a political appointee) to sit the office of President. I'm nowhere near familiar enough with the leanings of the current SC to say which way I expect it to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
troph

troph 24560

Posted
Posted
It actually is a job well done by Ryan, because this was always the goal.  It's the cherry on top of one of the greatest scams ever pulled in politics, going back all the way to Reagan.  Getting the useful idiots onboard is always easy, but they've put two generations of work into successfully convincing smart professionals that the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility and that, at worst, "both sides" are equally to blame.   They've sold "borrow and spend" as a replacement for "tax and spend" without anyone even realizing it.  That is a real achievement. 


And one of several reasons why I left the conservative side of things. Heartless priorities, fiscal irresponsibility and concern with the personal lives of the different. It’s actually quite the disgusting platform.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

so his reason is "i want to spend more time with my kids."

that seems noble, but i don't buy it. i think it absolutely means the wind is stronger than we may have previously thought.

Nobody ever wants to spend more time with their kids.  It's partly the political wind and partly just grabbing the cash after throwing a bomb into our nation's finances.  They don't want to be around for the wreckage. 

Edited by Mojo Hand
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...