Ryan is full of shit. He likes to say one thing and do another. The only reason he's doing this is for leverage. His party voted overwhelmingly in favor of Trump and his policies, like them or not. He should support the nominee or step down as speaker.
I guess I see them more as individuals as opposed to party representatives. Looking at things your way, I see your point.
wtf? http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/05/donald-trump-vicente-fox-accept-apology/
You're more optimistic about voters pragmatically analyzing his behaviors and actions than I am. I think most people are more emotional in their voting decisions, and the more emotional they are the easier it is to get them to rationalize inconsistencies. That's on both sides. Once people have committed emotionally it's hard to get them to decommit even in the face of reason or contrary information.
I think we just found trumps running mate!!! Hispanic voters: check Government experience: check Not born in the US: Cruz proved it doesn't really matter that much. #trumpfox16
I'm guessing Paul Ryan isn't endorsing Trump right now because he's not at all sure that Trump is a fiscal conservative. I'm betting that his statement that he'll wait to see if Trump can unify the party is aimed at making sure that Trump can bring the conservatives onboard, which is no sure thing right now.
Yes. I don't think he's a no-government raging lunatic though. One of the problems the GOP is facing right now is that a substantial number of voters in their camp are in the "chickens for checkups" crowd. Presumably many of these voters would not be interested in ponying up $5,000 a year to keep the roads a mile in each direction kept up, however they don't see how their taxes are a major part of that very specific thing. So they fantasize that everything would be better if the gubmint would just stop taking their money and giving it to poor black people.
Put another way: most rural areas would not have the level of infrastructure that they currently do absent the great splashing noise that federal funds returning to the area makes in comparison to the minor sucking sound that paying taxes to the federal government represents. Urbanized populations are actually net payers into the system and small rural areas tend to be net receivers. This is because large concentrated populations tend to generate large reliable tax bases and small rural areas tend to be much more inconsistent in terms of tax revenue generated. This is why NY and California get 79 cents back on each federal tax dollar taken, whereas New Mexico and Mississippi get back $2.02. It's why the list of states that are net payers closely correlates with the list of states with the highest population density. These are just facts. You guys on the right can spend all the time you want talking about how rural red states are getting ripped off by the welfare sucking big blue states but the facts are that rural red states (and some blue ones) are huge beneficiaries of big federal spending. Big blue states (and Texas) are the ones getting ripped off if anybody is, because they're essentially paying for their rural red neighbors standard of living. That the people complaining the loudest about big government spending are the people whose standard of living would suffer the most if it were removed is just high comedy. Useful idiots. That well publicized video of the older white woman in 2010 at a town hall berating her blue dog congressman and telling them to get their big government hands off of her medicare was the perfect example of the effect in motion.
Trump most certainly is a fiscal conservative in that everything he's ever had has been based on utilizing the concept of OPM.
Yep. Definitely complaining about roads. Not the 17 grand a year the government spends on each unaccompanied juvenile illegal immigrant that crosses the border. Are we really pretending that the government doesn't waste money?
I'm certainly not pretending that the government doesn't waste money. I just think it's much more likely to be wasting half a million dollars per 2 acre plot on agricultural subsidies for small farms that were long ago bought up by big corporations than it is to be wasting $17K on an unaccompanied minor. I think it's more likely to be wasting money on dozens of military bases and forts throughout the midwest, southwest and along the Mexican and Canadian borders that were built a century to two centuries ago, when the US had actual hostilities against actual enemies in those areas. These bases would be better off closed, but every time a base closing commission comes along most of them are spared. The notable exceptions being in big blue states most of the time where the economy can absorb the loss of local business that a base provides. It doesn't look so much like welfare when the government is allowing a community to support twice the number of people who could otherwise live there by keeping redundant and outdated bases with no real function open, does it? I'll guarantee you the small government useful idiots would be the first people to line up and say "keep my base open." They're not even aware that big government contributes to their lives in this way.
Example: Fort Monmouth A lot of fiscal conservatives were upset the government stopped spending money on them.
I asked if you thought Paul Ryan was a fiscal conservative. Did I say anything about red states getting ripped off by blue states? I'll pretend your first response where you practically called me a racist didn't happen. Holy hell.
I'm not too familiar with Paul Ryan except for the fact that he recently had the revelation that poor people don't like being poor and are not happy about their current situation in life. So if you say he's not really fiscally conservative and it appears he's becoming socially liberal, are you implying that he'll be the perfect running mate for Trump? I think Trump is pushing for party unity; it's just that he wants to unite both parties blue.
