Sarah Palin will work to defeat Ryan in primary for Trump stance

"I think Paul Ryan is soon to be 'Cantored,' as in Eric Cantor"


Note to Sarah. You know, when you think you have to explain something you said because you think it is really clever, you are actually the only person that may struggle with figuring it out if someone else said it. We all understood.



Indeed, bringing the mighty clout of the Mat-Su Valley to full attack mode, the Momma Grizzly, Caribou Barbie, the 1.5 term Governor of Alaska, whatever you like to call her is now campaigning against Paul Ryan.

What was Paul Ryan's great offense that brings the vengeful political attack machine int he form of Palin? Was it his consistent siding with the Democrats? No! That did not happen. Was it his track record of reckless spending? Nope, that did not happen either. Was it his stance on abortion, the 2nd amendment, LGBT rights?

No! None of the above.

Ryan's great offense was not falling into lockstep, and supporting Trump.

I am shocked (not really the Palin so readily admits her campaign against Ryan is not ideological based, but rather based on wanting to join the mean girls clique as it were, and praising, supporting, and pledging his adoration for the spray on tan covered reality show host whose campaign is a mish mash of nationalism, jingoism, and whatever else can be said to be the most ridiculous politician of this century?


Additionally, does the endorsement of Palin actually help a politician?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/08/politics/sarah-palin-paul-ryan-paul-nehlen-endorsement/

Sarah Palin will work to defeat House Speaker Paul Ryan by backing his primary opponent in Wisconsin, the former Alaska governor told CNN's Jake Tapper.
Palin said in an interview that airs Sunday on "State of the Union" that her decision was sparked by Ryan's bombshell announcement to Tapper last week that he wasn't yet ready to support Donald Trump, the Republican presumptive nominee. Palin endorsed Trump back in January.
"I think Paul Ryan is soon to be 'Cantored,' as in Eric Cantor," Palin said, referring to the former Republican House majority leader who was ousted in a shocking upset in 2014 when challenger Dave Brat ran to his right in a Virginia primary.

CNN Politics app
"His political career is over but for a miracle because he has so disrespected the will of the people, and as the leader of the GOP, the convention, certainly he is to remain neutral, and for him to already come out and say who he will not support is not a wise decision of his," Palin continued.
Ryan's announcement highlighted a deepening rift in the party over Trump, as several party elders have vowed to skip the GOP convention in July and not vote for the real estate magnate, while others say they'll back Trump out of party loyalty and a desire to block Hillary Clinton from reaching the White House.
RELATED: Palin on Trump VP talk: 'I want to help and not hurt'

Palin speculated that Ryan's announcement was driven out by a desire to seek the White House in 2020.
"If the GOP were to win now, that wouldn't bode well for his chances in 2020, and that's what he's shooting for," Palin said.
Ryan, who has repeatedly ruled out a 2016 bid, has not publicly commented on whether he'll seek the White House in 2020. But he told CNN's Dana Bash in October that if he were to ever seek the presidency, 2016 would have been his year to do so.


Ryan's primary opponent, Paul Nehlen, endorsed Trump soon after Ryan's announcement last week. Palin told Tapper that although she hasn't yet informed Nehlen that she's endorsing him, "I will do whatever I can for Paul Nehlen."
"This man is a hard-working guy, so in touch with the people," Palin said. "Paul Ryan and his ilk, their problem is they have become so disconnected by the people whom they are elected to represent."
She added: "They feel so threatened at this point that their power, their prestige, their purse will be adversely affected by the change that is coming with Trump and with someone like Paul Nehlen, that they're not thinking straight right no

 

If there's anyone who knows about a political career being over it's Palin.

 

And the Palin obsession continues...

 

and if there is anyone with more direct experience supporting the losing presidential primary candidate in wisconsin, its Palin... Trump didn't win wisconsin with her endorsement, he lost it... like I touched on in another thread similar to this, when you review the votes cast in Paul Ryan's district, you see Trump lost by double digits among his constituents, so he's not in danger of losing the primary against an unknown republican who simply is name dropping, I mean Palin didn't even know who the guy was a week ago when she was asked about him in an interview...

the only election Paul Ryan is facing danger in, would be the actual general election, because so many did not support Trump, he would likely have a drop off of support in the general election, as some Cruz supporters may just stay home... which is why the republican party has constantly been harping on "the down ticket" more than the presidential ticket... its almost as if they concede its likely he'll lose a general election, but they're more worried with losing seats in the house and senate as well as some governor races across the country because enough people will not come out to support Trump...

this is all why Paul Ryan has said he isn't supporting Trump "YET"... I mean he even offered to step down from chairing the convention if Trump is displeased... because he's trying to show that he has an open mind and isn't going to force his ideology on anyone, he's opening the door and extending the olive branch, but someone has to be on the receiving end and extend their arm back and accept it... if Trump doesn't accept the olive branch, I think Paul Ryans office will be the least concern of the republicans, because it likely will be the worst case scenario they are worried about, a complete wiping of the down ticket nationwide, in addition to the presidency...

 

While I have my doubts about the GOP candidates being "completely wiped" in the GE there is certainly likely to be some fallout given that red states like GA and AZ now look like they could be in play.

Usually the POTUS candidate does fundraising for down ticket campaigns and makes appearances to show support and solidarity. The big question is do the down ticket candidates want to have anything whatsoever to do with Tr(oll)mp or will his presence be toxic?

My guess that some will embrace him and others will shun him depending upon how gerrymandered their districts are already. For GOP Senate candidates it will depend upon where the state stands on the red-blue spectrum.

 

When it comes to giving up on politics to become the next Lucille Ball, I'd give the edge to Lady SaPa over the reformed Randwank.

 

That is not what I've read as being the reason that Paul Ryan has refused to support Donald Trump. From what I've read it's because Paul Ryan realizes that Donald Trump has no concept of the separation of powers in our government because he's never held a public office. Trump is used to being a corporate CEO where he had dictatorial powers (and drove four corporations into bankruptcy) but that's not the case for the President. The President is limited by the Constitution and effectively only has powers and budget based upon those authorized by Congress.

Bottom line Donald Trump is completely ignorant when it comes to being the President of the United States and Paul Ryan isn't going to endorse any candidate that's completely ignorant of the office of President. As noted Paul Ryan's seat in the House is not in jeopardy so whether he endorses Donald Trump or not is unimportant to him. Paul Ryan is a well established principled Republican politician while Donald Trump is not.

We can note that recently the GOP leadership instructed Republican senatorial candidates to "throw Trump under the bus" if they felt it would help their chances of being elected. With 24 of the 34 Senate seats up for election, and Republicans only having a four seat majority in the Senate, the GOP leadership is far more concerned about retaining a majority in the Senate than backing a presidential candidate that's doomed to lose based upon every election prediction.

If fact the GOP leadership has expressed the fear that Trump will lose worse than Barry Goldwater in 1964 where Goldwater lost in 44 states. It's actually conceivable that Trump could lose in all 50 states and receive ZERO Electoral College votes in November and that would be a first in presidential elections in the United States.

 

The last time the GOP ran a "celebrity" candidate was St Reagan. However the differences are stark. Tr(oll)mp has ZERO political experience never having been elected to any office whatsoever whereas St Reagan was a former CA governor who was capable of speaking in complete and coherent sentences.

While it is true that both men have charisma that is about all they have in common. St Reagan had a rudimentary grasp of what the job entailed and knew when and how to use diplomacy and wit. He didn't need to constantly brag because he understood that genuine leaders offer a vision for the future and inspire and motivate others to achieve that vision. Tr(oll)mp's vision for the future is anything but "inspiring". Turning this nation into a gulag with walls, spying on citizens because of their beliefs, murdering the innocent wives and children of our enemies and giving nuclear weapons to Japan and South Korea is a vision of a world that the Founding Fathers would abhor and condemn.

Tr(oll)mp does have an appeal to a certain segment of the population but it is not a majority and hopefully sanity and reason will prevail for the sake of everyone on the planet.

 

I already echo'd the "down ticket" voting issue in the message you replied to, would have been nice if you quoted the whole thing and realized I already acknowledge the worries of republicans with the loss of control in the house and senate, and that the presidency is the lesser worry at this point... while I my opinion is Paul Ryan is not worried about his "dictatorship" style as a president, I think Paul Ryan is more worried about him reflecting republican views, rather than his own interpretation of them... I mean its the republican nomination, not an independent run, so I think it has more to do with Paul Ryan wanting Trump to support their established platform, and little to do with your opinion its about Trump not understanding the separation of powers... maybe thats part of it, but I think Ryan is looking for Trump to support the republicans, not republicans support Trump... he came to them, they didn't come to him...

 

so basically same ole politics we always have heh... I mean an example I LOVE that comes up every election season, are democrats in COAL districts, who support and love coal more than anything else in the world, but you interview a democrat anywhere else in the country, and they HATE coal... same thing with democrats in GUN districts, who have no choice but to support guns, or it would become a republican district if they followed the parties official stance... same ole politics... power over ideology every time...

 

Agreed!

That is exactly why politicians are consummate liars and cannot be trusted. They will ALWAYS say what they believe the voters want to hear so that they will vote them back into power.

And yes, it swings both ways. Republicans moderate their views in blue states because they know that they won't be elected if they sound off like their southern brethren.

As an Independent I go by the maxim that ALL politicians are liars and never believe a word that they spout, especially not if they are agreeing with you. On Hillary's website she states that she will remove the income cap on social security. Yeah right! That is pure pandering because without an outright majority in both houses that will never happen. Same applies to building Tr(oll)mp's wall and having Mexico pay for it. Outright pandering for votes that have zero chance of ever happening.

 

well I understand the sentiment of your message, I don't want to go so far as calling them liars... while we both agree they choose power over group ideology, they are in fact representing their constituents when in my examples they support coal or guns despite that going against the parties general ideology, if the majority of their constituents however did not support or believe in those things, they would freely be able to reject it and stand on ideology alone because they wouldn't be risking the power... I guess thats my not so different but yet slightly different view... but yes republicans and democrats are equally guilty all across this nation for both of our views...

however to touch upon the trump wall thing, I actually wrote a message a long time ago explaining a very plausible way in which he could get them to build the wall, and pay for it, and its pretty much tied to the amount of foreign aid and mutual support they receive from us... now if we stopped giving them that foreign aid, I have no doubt they would give us a giant middle finger and ask us to have a seat on that finger... but as long as we keep sending the foreign aid, I have no doubt they will begrudgingly build the wall, it won't likely be to our standards, our time line, but I have no doubt they will slowly trickle that wall up to keep the cash flowing, we give to much to ignore it...

I mean mexico is getting close to 300 million in foreign aid... lets be insanely generous and say they spend half that building a wall, they still come out 150 million ahead... but lets be honest, it would never be that much, unless we increased the foreign aid and masked it as something else, and they skimmed off the top and gave us the wink wink sure and built a wall with that money instead of what it was earmarked for... so I have no doubt he could get them to build the wall, otherwise I think you would see a lot of americans be okay keeping that 300 million and using it to employ americans to build the wall, thats where I think Trump can twist it to employing americans if they won't...

 

Stop giving aid to mexico and suddenly they become an ally to china who would be happy to give them that aid. We don't give mexico money just because we are so nice

 

you seriously think china needs to buy their favor? what would china get out of them for 300 million a year? demonstrate to me why this isn't hyperbole...

the roughly 300 million we give to mexico goes to largely support their anti-drug efforts, thats the bulk of the money for various programs, why would china fund this?

P.S. mexico exports close to 300 BILLION a year to america, and only 8 billion a year to china, mexico doesn't make anything china needs... you see who needs who more? we don't NEED mexico, mexico needs us... america is literally 25% of their economy in exports alone... imagine if we shut off western union transfers back to mexico too... and guess what, mexico is just over 1% of our economy... 25% vs 1% and we wonder who needs who more? and china offers them NOTHING, china can't absorb that much of their economy... no way would china import that much more, they don't make anything they need in the quantities america purchases them in...

 

mexico accounts for 1% of our GDP... we don't need anything from them... you don't think we can move 1% of our economy someplace else?

you realize exports to america accounts for 25% of the mexican economy right... if mexico decided not to build the wall, and we stopped giving them 300 MILLION, and they in turn decide to allow china to build a military base in mexico, we would shut down mexican imports to america overnight, which means they would lose 300 BILLION overnight, which is 25% of their entire economy... now you tell me... is mexico willing to lose 300 BILLION over 300 MILLION... you can't honestly tell me they would...

there is NO way china could give them 300 billion a year in economic benefit to offset their losses... and lets say china DID make that move, all to provoke us... now we shut off chinese exports to america, slashing their economy by 5% at this point in time would cause them to to flat line, and they would likely enter a recession as a result... meanwhile they make LESS than 1% of our GDP from imports to china... mexico at a full 1% does more damage to us than china... so together we only lose 1.75%...

and you seriously want me to think we NEED mexico, and that we're threatened by china? if we were provoked we could collapse the chinese economy, and utterly decimate the mexican economy... and you really want to tell me that china would or could afford to rock the boat with us inside it all to gain a military base to thumb their nose at us? unless they were going to invade us, it wouldn't be worth the economic impact for them to rattle the bears cage...

seriously, just follow the numbers and think it through... you're putting nothing but hyperbolous statements up, without any factual basis to support them...

but by all means, show me the mathematics and prove everything I just stated as incorrect, and how you expect china to make up for mexicos loss while risking their economy...

 

you clearly aren't reading what I am posting... I showed the mathematics... I proved my statements... why don't you prove yours... show me you have something more than theory, opinion, and an immense amount of hyperbole... show me that all my mathematics were incorrect... show me how china could prop up the mexican economy with 300 billion, little alone with your claims they would double the money and make it 600 billion... plus the 300 million in foreign aid... prove anything you're saying... stop just giving me spin, theory, and opinion... give me some solid validated math or information that supports ANYTHING you're stating...

P.S. and we give them 300 million now because like I said earlier, it supports their anti-drug efforts with we directly benefit from as a result of it flowing into our country...

 

i just can't figure out why the left is still so afraid of this woman. her fifteen minutes have been up for quite some time and her remaining fan base (yes, i use that term quite specifically) is relatively small, though vocal. you can always tell what these fools are most afraid of by the childish ridicule they heap on the object of their fear. it's like a bad stand-up routine filled with caricatures, stereotypes and the usual mish-mash of half-truths and delusions. but then, i suppose their response is only natural. these are people who have been receiving their "news" from snl and the daily show for years and they have a hard time differentiating reality from a bad comedic skit.

 

Ryan's great offense was not falling into lockstep, and supporting Trump.

Not really, going along with the wasteful spending budget was Ryan's great offense.

- - - Updated - - -

Simply put a 40% tax on all money wired out of the country.

 

By that I assume we can make the same conclusion about you rightists?
By the "childish ridicule" you heap upon those that you fear the most?
Obama, Hillary, LGBT people, Democrats....the list is pretty long. Why does the right live in such fear?
Oh yeah, your media uses fear to control you.

 

Indeed. Palin is obsessed with flogging her own celebrity so she keeps spouting nonsense so the rubes won't forget her.

 

"I think Paul Ryan is soon to be 'Cantored,' as in Eric Cantor"

Palin actually said I think.......LOL