Ha...you can believe Ryan is playing 11 dimensional chess.....bit every single second that he continues to stand behind Trump, regardless of the occasional courageous "I disagree " tweet, he tosses another shovel full of dirt onto the grave of his career. It doesn't pay to be trailing Ted freaking Cruz on a basic issue of decency and humanity... but that's where Paul the Cowardly Ryan is, currently.
Ryan is trying to be loyal to his party but Trump makes it quite a challenge. This isn't 30 dimensional chess. This is 1/2 brained checkers. Republican outrage politics backfired!
1. I want to see videos of the meetings that Ryan, McConnell and other GOP office holders held with their staffs to draft these statements. Would be a fun watch. 2. Are these GOP leaders getting close to just cutting ties with Trump? Technically, the Republican party can still convene a meeting to officially replace their nominee as long as the actual ballots for the election isn't printed yet. Short of that, they can also just withdraw their endorsement. Politically, both would trigger a GOP civil war and be politically costly. But they have to know that Trump's offensive and stupid behavior isn't going to just stop with Mr. and Mrs. Khan. He is always liable to get triggered by the latest micro-aggression and do something more to damage the GOP brand. If you are ****ed either way electorally, why not do the right thing?
Surely a rhetorical question. These guys are used to winning at all costs. Party over country at every turn. They just led 6-7 years of congressional legislative blockades of historical measures. They aren't gonna risk a GOP civil war just to do the right thing. They are gonna ride this out and hope the party doesn't dissolve when Trump loses or after 4 years of Trump destroying the country and the world.
At some point, it may well be clear that there is no "riding this out" and they'll lose Congressional elections, too, if their brand is tied to Trump. Or maybe I'm mistaken and there are just enough voters out there who are either enthusiastic Trump supporters or will stick with anyone with an "R" next to their name on the ballot. Anyhow... during the RNC, Clinton, POTUS and other speakers made a point to not run against conservatives or Republicans, but rather to argue that Trump is not even a true conservative/Republican-- and that his approach is not even American. Some commentators wondered whether this labeling gave down-ballot GOP candidates an easy way out in terms of distinguishing themselves from Trump and thus keep control of Congress. I don't think this would be the case-- just look at what a hard time GOP leaders and candidates have in making this triangulation in light of the Khan situation.
I think they are just going to let him lose and focus on holding congress. Why risk a civil war - what does it accomplish? They must figure that 4 years of Hillary - they can approve Obama's Supreme court nominee, and have 4 more years of gridlock with Clinton which should frustrate voters more and give them a chance in 2020 to put forth another change candidate.
All fair points. It does seem that they are betting on team politics (voting for anybody with an "R" next or their name). And I agree that this strategy may not be sustainable. The Koch network has opted to not run any anti-Clinton ads. Instead, it will focus on using Clinton to help down ballot candidates. I'm not so sure Trump won't run off down ballot, especially if Trump motivates an anti-Trump turnout. I have trouble imaging what I see as a very cynical pack of politicians basically bowing out of the executive competition to dissociate from Trump. Would that not be the death of the party? Moreover, wouldn't disavowing Trump and running a real Republican possibly split the electorate in a way that might lead to a Trump victory as a 3rd party candidate? Would that be worth the risk?
True. But you are a conservative, so by default that makes Clinton a bad candidate. To Liberals she's "Ok" at the very least.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Khan says there is "shame" on Trump's "family" (Don Jr, Eric, etc).<br><br>Wow. Disgusting remark. Now would be a good time to stop.</p>— A.J. Delgado (@AJDelgado13) <a href="https://twitter.com/AJDelgado13/status/759785737730428932">July 31, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
More lies about drumpf's sacrifices: http://www.politicususa.com/2016/07/30/trump-busted-huge-lie-helping-build-vietnam-war-memorial.html Trump Busted For Huge Lie About Helping To Build The Vietnam War Memorial Donald Trump is claiming that he helped to build the Vietnam War Memorial, but a newspaper account from 1984 reveals that Trump is lying. Here is what Trump claimed he did during an interview with ABC News, “I was very responsible along with a group of people for getting the Vietnam Memorial built.” A 1984 Washington Post article revealed that while Trump was on the board to get the memorial built, he blew off most of the meetings, “* One official of the Vietnam Commission, who has attended all the meetings, maintains Trump has been to only two or three out of 20 meetings. This was confirmed by another member of the commission. The first time he attended a meeting was to launch the commission, one source says, and the second was when he arrived with a reporter who was profiling him.” Trump only showed up the first meeting, and then only showed up again for the sake of publicity when a reporter was doing a story on him. The next time that Donald Trump claims he is going to take care of our veterans, someone needs to ask him exactly what he means by that statement because his entire personal history involves using veterans for publicity. Donald Trump is trying to take credit for getting the Vietnam War memorial built when he didn’t even bother to show up for the meetings. Trump is no friend to our vets, and if Trump is elected president, he will treat vets the same poor way that he has treated them for entire adult life as a private citizen.
The constitution man said that Paul Ryan should remove Trump as a candidate. Suppressing millions people's vote is great American value. hypocrite.
At first I thought you were just kind of stupid. Then I started to feel a little sorry for you because everyone was ganging up. Now I am thinking you are a piece of ****. Thanks for this article trashing these parents. Questioning their character: Being a ****ing moron: Oh, Khan was just being an "American Soldier" (upper case!) like Akbar and Hasan were American Soldiers, huh? You have some balls lumping these three together, ****wad. These three do not deserve to be lumped together, and good luck to you with your feeble brain trying to explain why they should be. Come on and show off your Trump brain. Tell us why these three should be grouped together.
The Author made excellent points. His son died serving his country and he happened to be a Muslim. Was a muslim all he was? Should we stop our fight against radical islam due this guy dying in a war? What about all those people who died in the hands of radical islam? Do they not matter? How hard is it to use logic here?
I can't believe you missed the point. Khan's son was killed by radical muslims. Akbar and Hassan were two radical muslims who killed soldiers. We are at war with radical islam. That's it and that's all.
