Did Paul Ryan switch parties?

[Jim in CT]

Ryan submits his budget. From what I saw, it still includes funding for Planned Parenthood. Take it out of there, and let Weird Harold veto the budget if he wants to stick his neck out.

I think a lot of conservatives like me are getting ticked off that Republicans like Ryan promised that things would be different if we gave legislative control to the GOP, which we did.

Didn't happen. If you told me that Nancy Pelosi submitted that budget, I would believe you. And we nominated this idiot to be our VP? Couldn't even carry his own state.

This is part of th ereason why Trump is popular, he's not afraid to call out the Paul Ryans of the world for being the liars they are. If we lose this election because of infighting, we did it to ourselves.

[spence]

He funded most of Obama's agenda.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

If the Repubs. lose the election it is bc they constantly insult people and don't offer them anything to appeal to them. After the last election leadership said they need to reach out to Hispanics, women, etc. They are making the same mistakes now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Thank you for the flash bulletin and thank god for planned parenthood
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Ryan submits his budget. From what I saw, it still includes funding for Planned Parenthood. Take it out of there, and let Weird Harold veto the budget if he wants to stick his neck out.

I think a lot of conservatives like me are getting ticked off that Republicans like Ryan promised that things would be different if we gave legislative control to the GOP, which we did.

Didn't happen. If you told me that Nancy Pelosi submitted that budget, I would believe you. And we nominated this idiot to be our VP? Couldn't even carry his own state.

This is part of th ereason why Trump is popular, he's not afraid to call out the Paul Ryans of the world for being the liars they are. If we lose this election because of infighting, we did it to ourselves.

We've already done it to ourselves. What Ryan did with this budget is what, in essence, he has done or proposed to do in the past. He is one of the Republican leaders on the edge of the establishment. He talks a good "conservatism" but votes for compromise. We've discussed this problem of centrism and compromise before.

It seems to me that the Republicans who came to power after Reagan (even well before Reagan, but he temporarily reversed the trend) did not seriously understand the nature of the political war they were in. They understood neither what political principles they were fighting for (or forgot them, or abandoned them), nor how to fight that war.

They accepted that politics on both sides of the aisle were about the same thing, just a different way of getting there. And the constant compromise consistently changed the nature of what they were fighting for so that both began to resemble each other, one merely becoming the "lite" version of the other.

It became that thing Spence likes. The Democrats (progressives) leading the way, and the Republicans (not really conservatives) just slowing them down to a more "moderate" pace, or checking them when the Dems were going too far (too quickly), too dangerously approaching the edge of some cliff.

But each compromise made the cliff steeper and closer and more difficult to avoid since both parties kept "compromising" in the same direction.

In actuality, though, it was the inept Republicans who kept warning about the approaching cliff (even though they were helping to get there), but the Progressives never saw it as a cliff. Rather they saw a growing structure incrementally taking shape from the parts, the building blocks of compromise, which constantly shifted leftward in their direction, of a new America, or new World Order. Bit by bit they were deconstructing America and thus changing the character of Americans.

This new American "character" has been reshaped from bedrock to clay, so to speak. From a self-reliant citizenry holding a common bond based on the steadfast principles of their constitutional foundation to a malleable people with no common creed and whose basis for life is molded and shaped by government. We are, in the main, a people who see good government as that which gives us things. Which creates "policies" that make our life comfortable, even sustainable. A people who depend on government and are bereft without its largesse. And, the majority of us see bad government, bad politicians, as those who "constantly insult people and don't offer them anything to appeal to them" as has been said on this thread.

So there's your real cliff. The supposedly unsustainable national debt is a mere bagatelle. It can be shooed away by an all-powerful central government. By the snap-snap of a thumb rubbing the middle finger as the hand of government waves across our face. And in that gesture sustained by its power to order its crony corporations to produce and distribute our needs (rewarded, of course, by handsome contracts paid by various government scripts or chits or privileges, and made to fear perverse regulation if they don't comply) . . . in that gesture the final bricks of a new America, and ultimately, a new World, will have been laid in place. What outdated and outmaneuvered "conservatives" saw as a cliff will be, not the "city on a hill" that Reagan saw, but the ultimate State.

So, in not recognizing what the political war was about, Republicans who thought they were conservatives, have helped to bring us to this brink. Just squeezing out some more compromises may slow its time of arrival, but it will come, unless conservatives finally realize their folly. The Tea Party does. Ted Cruz probably does. Fiorina may. Rand Paul may. Rubio says he does. And Trump blusters about making America great again, but, unless he hasn't yet articulated it, he doesn't seem to know what actually made it great in the first place. Yeah, he's got part of it down. Fearlessness. Fighting spirit. Confronting the enemy head on no-holds-barred. But he gives the impression of being the same autocrat that progressives aspire to be, just from a different direction.

So, what's left? What's the battle and how is it fought? In terms of a distinction from progressives, conservatives must not compromise what they claim to be their principles. In a sense, the American Revolution must be refought, but this time in the political arena rather than the military battlefield. In this battle between political conservatism and progressivism, the goal of the former is to protect its principles from extinction and reinstate them as the basis for American government. In that the progressive system is so entrenched and on the doorsteps of final transformation, the conservative position is desperate.

Compromise to live a little longer makes that position worse than desperate. It invites extinction. What does a leader do when the odds are so against him. Sung Tzu, in The Art of War, said:

"On desperate ground, fight."

For, as Chia Lin remarks: "if you fight with all your might, there is a chance of life; where as death is certain if you cling to your corner."

Sung Tzu says: "Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight. If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve."

The Republican Party, as a "conservative" one, is in desperate straights. It has got there partly of its own making. It has fought wars poorly. When it has had an advantage, it didn't, as Coolidge and Reagan did, govern strongly with foundational principles. It weakly gave in for the sake of compromise and in fear of how a liberal press would define it. So it has incrementally grown weaker, as the progressives, who only compromised when weak, have pressed hard when politically strong, to the point when, even now, they press on and win even when they don't have numbers. The Progressives know the art of war.

It is time for conservatives to throw themselves into positions from which there is no escape. They must not cower into picking "moderate" candidates and shun true conservatives for fear of bad press. They must fully articulate their principles as artfully as Reagan did, stick by them without compromise, and face the fear of death by media. If they do that, as Sung Tzu says, "there is nothing they may not achieve."

Otherwise "death is certain if you cling to your corner."

[detbuch]

http://humanevents.com/2015/12/23/po...tm_campaign=nl

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

If the Repubs. lose the election it is bc they constantly insult people and don't offer them anything to appeal to them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Come on, they control both houses of Congress (for now, could change, lots of Senate Republicans up for re-election in November) and a large majority of governorships and state legislatures. They are clearly appealing to a LOT of people, right?

Trump is obnoxious and offensive. But as you described repubs as doing nothing but insulting people, believe it or not, a lot of conservatives feel the same way about liberals. Obama calling us bitter clingers because we are racist, for example. Or Obama saying that all we do is "hate all the time". The precise reason why Trump is doing well, is because many conservatives are tired of taking cheap shots, and want someone who will throw elbows back. McCain would not do that, nor would Romney. Trump is happy to do it.

[PaulS]

Cheap shots? What could be "cheaper" then lying about someone's religion and where they were born? The Repub. keep chipping away at segments of the population. White males will be the only one left - and that is going to be a smaller and smaller % of the pop.

You don't think the Repubs. are repeating exactly what happened last Pres. election cycle?

[Nebe]

Speaking of "where he was born" and the argument that it was illegal for obama to be elected because he was supposedly born in Kenya.... Anyone know where Ted Cruz was born ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Cheap shots? What could be "cheaper" then lying about someone's religion and where they were born? The Repub. keep chipping away at segments of the population. White males will be the only one left - and that is going to be a smaller and smaller % of the pop.

You don't think the Repubs. are repeating exactly what happened last Pres. election cycle?

"What could be "cheaper" then lying about someone's religion and where they were born?"

I would say that calling everyone who disagrees with you a racist, is a cheap shot.

It's also a cheap shot (and stupid) to say he's a muslim or that he wasn't born here.

Fair enough?

Here's the difference...Trump is a clown, Obama is the sitting President. When Obama sai dthat white conservatives (tens of millions of fellow Americans) all cling to religion and guns because e are bitter and racist, that's no less deplorable than anything Trump is saying. The difference is, 70% of Republicans don't support Trump, and many of us are telling him to shut up and be respectful, and NO ONE on the left does that with Obama, almost never.

"The Repub. keep chipping away at segments of the population"

And that's not what liberals do? They don't take one minoruty group at a time, and tell thenm why they are victims and why the need to fear the white conservative boogeyman?

Paul, look at most major issues, and how your side frames them.

Abortion...if I say I am pro-life, you rside says I am opposed to women's health. Asinine.

Social Security - if I say it needs to be fixed before it implodes, your side says it's because i don't care about old people.

Medicare - same as SS, just substitute "sick" for old.

Immigration - if I saw we should enforce duly constituted immigration laws, your side says I am anti-Hispanic.

Radical Islam - if I say it's a threat, your side says I am an Islamophobe.

Religious liberty - if I say that even Christians are allowed to practice their religion, your side says I am a homophobe.

Also, you said "what coule be cheaper" than lying about someone's religion? How aout Obama using the ederal government to fine/imprison Christians for their beliefs? What's worse? Words or actoins? Words only hurt if yo ulet them hurt.

"White males will be the only one left"

Why i sthat? Can you explain to us, in an honest way, why the GOP doesn't do well with non-whites? What conservative policies does the GOP endorse, that hurt inocent non-whites?

Bill Clinton is a hero to blacks. Yet the economic policies he endorsed, could have come right from the Tea Party playbok (cut capital gains taxes, cut spending to the point where the budget has a surplus, kick millions of blacks off welfare and tell them to get a job). That's what Clinton did, and he's a hero. If Ted Cruz supports the same thing, your side says he's a racist.

I know the liberal narrative says that republicans only care about white males. But there's no truth to it. Which makes it a cheap shot. You are just so married to the narrative, you can't see it. So it's OK for you to say that republicans are all racist, and somehow that's not a cheap shot for you to say that. Why is that?

"You don't think the Repubs. are repeating exactly what happened last Pres. election cycle"

No. Trump is the difference. Some of the candidates (Trump, Cruz, Christie) are calling out the liberal bullsh*t for exactly what it is, and it's way past time for that.

Obama isn't running again. No one will be fainting at Hilary rallies. She's a phony, morally bankrupt, pathological liar, with one scandal after another on her resume, as well as a stint as Secstate that was an abject disaster. I hope we nominate someone that will take the gloves off and beat the sh*t out of her. Because McCain and Romney were too timid to do that with Obama, and they lost. The American public showed in 2008 and 2012 that they aren't interested in a republican candidate who will just sit there and let the Democratic candidate lie about everything we are saying.

[Jim in CT]

Paul, sorry for the dreadful typing in my previous post.

To reiterate what I think is an important question. You claim that the GOP only appeals to white men, and I think you have a point in making that statement. Where you and I would disagree, is that I presume you feel the GOP does best with white males, because you (like most liberals) feel the conservative agenda favors whites over blacks.

I follow these things closely. I hear this claim all the time, that the GOP caters to white men. I don't know that I have ever heard anyone explain what specific conservative policy item, is racist?

Furthermore, I keep hearing that Bill Clinton is a hero to blacks, and that he's the greatest living politician. To repeat my earlier question, how was Clinton's policy agenda (at least in terms of economics) any different than that which is supported by the Tea Party today? Clinton slashed taxes, he balanced the budget, and he kicked millions of poor Americans off of welfare, because he assumed (correctly as it turned out) that they would go to work if kicked off the gravy train. Newt Gingrich prompted Clinton to do these things, but Clinton eventually agreed, and it worked, and he is considered a hero.

So how come, if a conservative suggests the same things (cut taxes, cut spending, kick people off welfare who are perfectly able to work) liberals will jump all over him with claims that he doesn't care about poor people?

Good luck answering those questions.

If you believe, like I do, that Bill Clinton's economic policies were the catalyst for spectacular growth, then I have news for you...you support conservative economic principles. Whoever gets the GOP nomination, will advocate for economic policies that resemble what Clinton did, FAR MORE than what will be advocated for by Hilary. Because the Democrat party has gone 10 million miles to the left since Bill Clinton left office.

Everyone on the left hails Bill Clinton as an economic genius. None of those people seem to have a keen idea as to what, exactly, Clinton implemented.