Discussion: Trump Is 'Okay' With The Idea Of Paul Ryan As House Speaker (VIDEO)

Discussion for article #241629

Trump’s mouth gets worse and worse. He is pandering in the extreme. I no longer like him–I know that the worst I can say about him, he wants to be liked and admired.

Oh well if Commander Jerkface approves, get Subcommandante Ryan a gavel!


Well there you are, trump is OK with it! How nice.

So Trump is “okay” with an actual loser House Speaker? He must be moderating his views.


Trump loves the taste of adulation in the morning.


I’m not sure about the rest of you, but I’m withholding any judgement on Ryan as speaker until I hear what Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal have to say about it. I look forward to Sarah’s eloquent case for who should be speaker, and Bobby always has such measured and thoughtful takes on any subject.


Who cares what they think, they’re losers who don’t want Murka to be Great Again. :wink:

While I wait for what Sarah and Bobby have to say, I must admit that what Krugman says about Paul Ryan makes sense - he is a total con man and charlatan. Being speaker will only help expose that and ruin his charade of being a sensible wonk.


For Ryan it will come down to time - will he have enough time for his work outs after all the time it takes to be Speaker. What tRump says means nothing to him.

More to the point I think, Ryan isn’t cut out to be a Speaker. He isn’t that kind of Congressman. The Speaker, and pretty much all of Leadership, are people that do the dirty work of getting bills passed. Counting votes, knocking heads, selling and buying souls. People work.

Ryan on the other hand, is a numbers guy. Made up numbers, yes, but still a numbers guy. He likes to pretend he is wonkish. But not a people person. He has zero experience at that sort of work, nor have I seen any indication that he has any interest in it Quite the contrary. He has said repeatedly he is not interested, and not just the last 3 times since McCarthy backed out.

Now I do get why so many in the press and the GOP are getting themselves to fall in love with the idea, because its a shallow notion. Ryan used to hang out with tea party, and now he hangs out with the establishment…everybody loves him! But even that is a false narrative, as Labrador showed last night in an interview. The TP has already demanded that Ryan come to them on bended knee and swear fealty if he wants their support. If he doesn’t, they will continue to back Webster (who, interestingly enough, will be out of the House next election due to the redistricting in Florida…really sharp bunch, these tea partiers), thus ensuring nobody can get elected Speaker.

And I suspect Ryan knows all of this. So of course he doesn’t want to take a job, where he is being promised to be gutted if he doesn’t abide by the Tea Party demands or forever black balled by the Establishment if he does. There is no win there at all for him. And its a job that he knows he is particularly ill equipped to do even in the best circumstances. And these are not the best circumstances.


Well I’m not. Third in line for the presidency? Unacceptable for a light weight little twerp.

Isn’t the Speaker second in line after the President in case of incapacity or illness, and the Vice president first in line? What am I missing here?



Paulie is said to be reluctant to leave his comfortable niche in the House because of presidential aspirations, but I want to shove this in front of that smg face. Only one sitting member of the House has been elected president, James Garfield in 1880 although 18 presidents have been former members of the House. Paulie must think he’s special enough to shatter that record.


Well, who wouldn’t want this hunk as Speaker?

Sarah’s reaction captured on tape: "What? The House of Reps has a speaker? What does it do? Is it surround sound?

1 Like

There is no placating the TP. One thing this whole fiasco has shown is that any threat to hold new elections to dispose of the Speaker is a hollow one. The TP radicals may have just marginalized themselves as Boehner called their bluff and were exposed as paper tigers. They can be safely ignored from now on and there is nothing they can do about it.

Boehner should keep the job, tell the TP to pound sand and enjoy his new power, feeling safe that there will be no more rebellions.


I think that will happen, at least through the end of the year. Josh was correct, Boehner is now essentially Superman, there is nothing the TP can do to him.

Threaten to toss him out? He wants to get out, he has already resigned. To follow through on that threat, they have to elect a new Speaker. And they can’t.

Threaten to run against him in his district? He is quitting Congress. He won’t be running there anyway.

Threaten to yell and scream and throw tantrums on the Floor? Please…Boehner’s been there, seen that, and has plenty of T-shirts.

But its not a long term solution.

What is however, deliciously ironic to me, is how we have turned one of the biggest Conventional Wisdom pearls on it’s head. Namely that lame ducks are powerless. We have a lame duck President that has been kicking ass and winning at every turn since he achieved lame duck status. And now we have a lame duck Speaker, perfectly empowered to do the same damn thing.


The long term solution is to get rid of gerrymandering and have a real House of Representatives. Maybe a crazy or two could slip in, but not in the number we see today thanks to carved up districts that are ideologically uniform.

Wishful thinking, I know.


Well, one of the funniest parts of this whole “House in Chaos” pieces that nobody is reporting is that Florida, which is in the process of redrawing its map with the Courts standing over them, is going to redistrict Dan Webster right out of a district. His new district, which is basically the same and agreed to on every version of the maps, is +27 Blue. Even he says he can’t win there, or in the neighboring district, which is +12 Blue.

That is the Dan Webster that the Freedom Caucus is backing to the be the new Speaker.

But, while gerrymandering does greatly exasperate a problem, the underlying problem is that republicans, and crazy republicans play better in rural districts. So until we start to address that problem by assigning congressional seats/population more directly or getting Dems to play better in rural districts, its going to continue to be an issue.

Look at PA for a great example. We win that nationally because the populations in Philly and Pittsburgh so outsize rest of the state. But look at any map, and its two blue islands surrounded by a sea of red. As long as you draw districts based on geography, their will be an oversized representation of rural areas.

I used Utah as another example a few days/weeks ago. Utah has 4 districts, yet 2/3 of its population is around SLC. Basically, you need 3 districts in SLC and 1 for the remainder of the state. And THAT would be a very ugly map indeed. But representative.