May 12, 2016

When Trump met Ryan...

"The two men met at the Republican National Committee first thing on Thursday morning, with Reince Priebus, the committee’s chairman, as a chaperone."
Mr. Ryan gave no public signal that he was poised to back Mr. Trump, and two people briefed on their private meeting said they did not discuss a possible endorsement. But... [a]t a news conference, Mr. Ryan said he had found the meeting encouraging and pleasant... [and that] he and Mr. Trump had discussed the constitutional separation of powers, Supreme Court justices and abortion, among other subjects.

Mr. Ryan said he had found Mr. Trump a “very warm and genuine person.” “Donald Trump and I have had our differences — we talked about those differences today,” Mr. Ryan said, adding, “I do believe that we are now planting the seeds to get ourselves unified.”
Sounds as though they stress constitutional law for some reason — perhaps because Trump has given off some signs that he doesn't much care about or understand the role of law in the United States. 

And, just now, the 2 men issued this joint statement:
The United States cannot afford another four years of the Obama White House, which is what Hillary Clinton represents. That is why it’s critical that Republicans unite around our shared principles, advance a conservative agenda, and do all we can to win this fall. With that focus, we had a great conversation this morning. While we were honest about our few differences, we recognize that there are also many important areas of common ground. We will be having additional discussions, but remain confident there’s a great opportunity to unify our party and win this fall, and we are totally committed to working together to achieve that goal. We are extremely proud of the fact that many millions of new voters have entered the primary system, far more than ever before in the Republican Party's history. This was our first meeting, but it was a very positive step toward unification.
They are there already, no? This is just padding, for the sake of pride, maybe, or for the comfort of the neverTrumper crowd.

50 comments:

Big Mike said...

... perhaps because Trump has given off some signs that he doesn't much care about or understand the role of law in the United States.

Compared to what? To the ideal presidential candidate of a law professor's dreams? Or to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

They are there already, no? This is just padding, for the sake of pride, maybe, or for the comfort of the neverTrumper crowd.

Or to make it cover more news cycles. Trump seems to be pretty good at flooding the news cycles.

Sebastian said...

"Trump has given off some signs that he doesn't much care about or understand the role of law in the United States." True, Trump doesn't understand that the role of law in the United States is to advance Prog power and defeat the right in the culture wars. But for that bit of ignorance, I forgive him.

eric said...

Yeah. Ryan wants to look reasonable and tough.

As far as the Trump supporters and the nevertrump team, it just disgusts both sides.

But the people who work hard all day, come home, turn on the nightly news and eat dinner, this effects them most. The mushy middle. They'll see this and nod their heads and think, good on them both.

jr565 said...

Ryan and all republicans who despise Trump with every fiber of their being will end up supporting Trump in the election. or they're stupid. Once he's elected though, it should be back to treating Trump like the joke he is.

Tank said...

... perhaps because Trump has given off some signs that he doesn't much care about or understand the role of law in the United States.

Yeah, I would have worried about this in the past. But as an Althouse commenter has noted:

Alexander said...

Once you've allowed the barbarians through the gates, any swashbuckling ruffian who is willing to pick up a sword and push them back out again is an ally.

We can worry about what the city should look like once we've put out the fires and have stopped the barbarians from actively setting more of them.

jr565 said...

(cont) Ryan loses nothing by saying he supports Trump (for the purposes of defeating Hillary) But he will still push his agenda when trump wins. It would seem that the senate actually would dictate to Trump what gets done not the other way around. Because the only other option for Trump is the democrats.
I can imagine Trump ignoring Repubs and working with democrats. But I can't imagine that wouldn't' sour Republicans on Donald trump. And democrats may not want to really align themselves with the racist bigot.
Very rarely does a candidate come into office with little support on his own side. That is a weak president. He could attempt to strengthen that relationship but that would require he move to the right. So Republicans get what they want. If he moves to the left he loses all support from his base and has to try to build support with his non base.

Who are Trumpkins going to side with if Trump pushes something that no Republican wants, like single payer healthcare? Suppose that generates a lot of democratic support. Are the Trumpkins now democrats? And they'd be at war with the Repubs? Ok, then get the hell out of the party. We were right to call you out. This is the folly of electing Trump for those supporting Trump.

Real American said...

"perhaps because Trump has given off some signs that he doesn't much care about or understand the role of law in the United States."

Neither does the current president. except those aren't just signs, but actual actions and policies.

Paul said...

" Once he's elected though, it should be back to treating Trump like the joke he is."

Unless he's not. In which case you can either double down on stupid or admit misjudgment. The less spouting off now the easier that pill will be to swallow.

buwaya said...

I doubt any actual discussion about "principles" happened.

As we say back home, this is all "palabas" -for the outside, a show.

It looks like they are coming to a deal about something substantial, not principles.

MikeR said...

Well, good. Let's get back to work, Republicans.

Farmer said...

They are there already, no? This is just padding, for the sake of pride, maybe, or for the comfort of the neverTrumper crowd.

Both.

Ryan is a horse's ass.

khesanh0802 said...

Ann Talk about jumping to conclusions based on no evidence: "perhaps because Trump has given off some signs that he doesn't much care about or understand the role of law in the United States." Most people are whining about Trump's use of the courts in his business dealings and you're saying he doesn't know much about the law. He may not be the whiz bang constitutional scholar that Obama is (sarcasm for those who are sarcasm challenged) but I will bet good money that he understands the separation of powers, the role of the legislature, the role of the courts and the role of the president under our system.

jr565 said...

(cont) However, at this point getting Trump in is still the priority. However, it will only weaken Trump if he attempts to impose his non republican agenda, and doesn't move to the right. So, there is actuallly a benefit (other than beating hillary). not because I expect Trump to push conservative policies. But because if he doesn't he will only hurt himself. And I have no problem, would actually relish, a Trump floundering with his own party screaming at him at the top of their lungs that he's a traitor that only works with democrats.
it would require actual Republicans to actually fight Trump when he acts like a democrat. That means Ted Cruz next go around not only fights Obama when he pushes liberal policies but will take on his own president when he acts like the biggest squish. Donald Trump is the biggest squish.

Donald Trump could actually prove me wrong and not continue pushing these dumb policies. Because he wants to get stuff passed,. if I'm proved wrong it still helps Republicans because, again, its their agenda that gets pushed.

So, Never Trumpers. At this point, stop fighting the battle against Trump winning. Embrace him winning. Fight the next battle where Trump is either your lapdog or your enemy as president. Both have their positives.

Patrick said...

"This is just padding, for the sake of pride, maybe, or for the comfort of the neverTrumper crowd."

Padding too, for the Trump supporters, for whom a deal with Ryan is akin to a deal with the devil.

buwaya said...

" I will bet good money that he understands the separation of powers, the role of the legislature, the role of the courts and the role of the president under our system."

And the realities behind the facade of the system.

JRoberts said...

Why did I just have a have a vision of the "Hitler" and "Mussolini" meeting from the Chaplin film "The Great Dictator"?

Dan Hossley said...

I think Ryan and Trump are there, but the House Republican caucus is a bag of mixed nuts and the only thing that interests them is re-election. So there has to be a modus vivendi worked out so that when a House member trashes Trump on his/her campaign trail, Trump doesn't dump on him/her.

Brando said...

Ryan, like most GOP officeholders, are trying to walk the fine line between keeping the Trumpers in the fold and not alienating the anti-Trump parts of their constituency (both moderate and conservative). Polling in their respective states and districts is only helpful to a point, because they don't know what it'll look like closer to November. You'll notice the more strident anti-Trump statements are coming from those who are not on the ballot this November (e.g., Sasse, Romney). For example, McCain has been more supportive of Trump (despite the P.O.W. comment) than Lindsay Graham, who is otherwise a kindred spirit. What's the difference? Well, guess which one is up for reelection this year?

It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out. The Dem challengers must be licking their proverbial chops (of course, they're stuck having to explain their support for THEIR nominee).

M Jordan said...

Ryan's providing a safe space for NeverTrumpers to have their come-to-Jesus moment.

jr565 said...

Paul wrote:
Unless he's not. In which case you can either double down on stupid or admit misjudgment. The less spouting off now the easier that pill will be to swallow.

That is a possibility. I think Trump despite his bluster is actually not that principled. So he won't fight on principle. Rather his goal will be that he wins something. That would be beneficial to Republicans.And will actually make Trumpbots hate him. (then agin I think Trumpbots have the same flaw as Obama supporters. They don't care what he does. They too are not arguing principles) Because he is NOT going to deliver on his various idiotic agenda goals. He may get a wall built, but he's not going to get everyone deported. Because that is a stupid suggestion.
And because many Republicans have supported that the wall be built. if he insists on dictating terms, and those terms are counter to Republicans goals, then they are right to oppose him, no? Therefore they wouldn't be doubling down on stupid they'd be doubling down on principle. It all depends on how Trump ultimately rules.
I think in both cases, whether he allies with repubs or doesn't is still a victory for repubs in both cases.

buwaya said...

"I think Trump despite his bluster is actually not that principled."

Of course he isn't. He's Trump. He's goal-oriented, not process-oriented, and not, God forbid, ideology-oriented.

"and those terms are counter to Republicans goals"

There are Republican goals?

Gusty Winds said...

The visuals of the day look good for Trump.

1) Clearly he visits Washington as an outsider. We're used to seeing Trump everywhere but Washington DC.
2) It looks like he is already making the rounds to shake hands with Congress like an Elected President might do the first few weeks in office.
3) And it looks like he is willing to listen to his opponents to seek common ground.

Nonapod said...

On having principals versus being unprincipled, is their historical evidence one way or the other that being unprincipled as a leader is generally a good thing or a bad thing for the people they're leading? Does being a good leader require one to have strong, unbending principals (being an ideologue)? Should their be lines that can never be crossed? Are bad leaders always unprincipled? Does being an ideologue make one more likely to be a great leader? Am I rambling?

Basil said...

Obamacare funded without an appropriation (millions and millions of dollars) and our Professor is worried about Trump's view of the Constitution?

Gusty Winds said...

I regards to being elected to the Executive Brach, Ryan couldn't carry Wisconsin for Romney as his VP in 2012 and Trump lost the State in the primary a little over a month ago to Cruz.

There's one thing they have in common.

Wonder if Trump pointed that out as an ice breaker.

Dude1394 said...

They are there as there was very little places for Ryan to go and he would have been cantored.

With Rick Perry and Jindahl on-board he had nowhere to go.

Romney is a lost cause and should be shunned.

jr565 said...

In regards to principle I mean ruling according to ideology, Ted Cruz is certainly a more ideological conservative. So I'd expect him to actually push for ideologically conservative goals. Trump is a lot less conservative. So he will be much more of a pushover when it comes to getting his agenda passed. If he true to push something and he gets a lot of pushback form conservatives how likely is he to force the issue, rather than fight it on principle? I think Its a lot less likely. This is good news ultimately for republicans who will be pushing their agenda.
The worst that can happen is Trump decides to fight them on it. So ok. Who will back him? The only way he could get things passed that republicans don't want him to pass is if he goes to the democrats to do so and they can overrule the republicans. And then, that's it for republicans supporting Trump going forward. If he wants anything done he has to work with dems alone. That might even be bad for the few years that trump is in power. But what are his chances for the second four years. Would any republican support him?
Trumpbots might support him still, but by that point trumpbots would be revealed to be nothing but democrats and we have no interest in siding with democrats.

Achilles said...

"Who are Trumpkins going to side with if Trump pushes something that no Republican wants, like single payer healthcare? Suppose that generates a lot of democratic support. Are the Trumpkins now democrats? And they'd be at war with the Repubs? Ok, then get the hell out of the party. We were right to call you out. This is the folly of electing Trump for those supporting Trump."

1. trump supports market based health care reform with health savings accounts. This is diferent from the current republican party that wrote, upheld in court, and fully funded obamacare.

2. the neocons are out.

3. no more open borders.

kjbe said...

Reads like it was written yesterday.

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jonathan Graehl said...

absolutely agree w/ achilles 1-3. also 4. liberal groupthink PC emperor has no clothes, but that pendulum was bound to swing a little back with or without Trump (still, credit is due)

when paul ryan was a threat, trump lovers seemed to emphasize some chummy moment of ryan+obama. they're both intelligent, socially competent men so it's not surprise they can find some sort of genuine primate-social respect. but it seems to me ryan is perfectly happy to trash "obama administration" to his party base in hopes of having a political future. so either he's really phony or the "ryan is in bed with obama" folks were off their rocker (i'm leaning more toward the latter).

what do you think? ryan really opposes the obama admin or just when the political winds favor it?

traditionalguy said...

Nobody doesn't like DonnieLee cakes. He is in the high end Hospitality business and uses honey to catch flies and ego driven men.

Jonathan Graehl said...

buwaya: "there are republican goals?"

brutal, man. so true. seems they've pretended to have goals. not to say they haven't limited some liberal excesses, but ... right on.

jr565 said...

Achilles, Trump can propose that, but republicans are going to have something to say about it.
You think Trump is a king? It just might work out that Trump, in seeking to remake the Republican Party ends up causing TRumbots to be kicked out.
Trump has said that he wants single payer. He's all over the place on what he wants and says will happen when it comes to health care. If his opinions line up with what republicans send his way, then there are no problems. But he doesn't write laws, so he is beholden to his party. If they don't want his agenda passed what is he going to do?
He has to deal with congress. If he wants republicans to stop being republican and adopt his ways what does he have to force them into that position? Nothing. So, don't think that, even if he is elected he suddenly has this mandate, if more than half of the party hates his guts. They will not have his back. Ergo, he is hung out to dry.

jr565 said...

Also, Achilles I'm not convinced that Trump is for market based solutions to health care.
When it was Hillary care Trump said : "I think it was very good. It’s a very very complex setup for things going on right now in terms of healthcare, but she came out with an idea, sounds like a pretty good idea, and a lot of people like it and embraced it. “


And he also expressed an affinity for Canadian style healthcare polices in his book the Amercica We Deserve: The Canadian plan also helps Canadians live longer and healthier than America…We need, as a nation, to reexamine the single-payer plan, as many individual states are doing.”
Sounds like he likes universal health care to me. Enough that he would put it in his book. you say he supports market based solutions, HE says he supports Canadian style health care. I can't help not think that maybe what he wrote in his book has some bearing as to what he thinks about health care. And if he is saying he is for market based solutions NOW, that could be because he thinks that's what republicans want to hear.

jr565 said...

(Cont) so whether republicans support trump depends on which Trump we get. If he comes out and says I support Candian style health care as he did in his book them are you, the Trumpbot, going to be mad at republicans if they don't support it? Because he will probdlby get a lot of democrat support on that.
Who would the enemy be there? trump? Or the republicans who oppose him? Because if you back the universal health care option YOU are the enemy.

Gusty Winds said...

Ryan at the post meeting presser showing he can interpret reality.

QUESTION: You just mentioned the millions of new voters that he's [Trump]bringing in, new people. I was wondering how you actually interpret his success? Is it going to mean the real fundamental realignment of the party because of these new voters that he's bringing in, how do you interpret his success?

PAUL RYAN: It is really kind of unparalleled, I think. He has gotten more votes than any Republican primary nominee in the history of our country. This isn't even over yet. He hasn't even gone to California yet.

It's really a remarkable achievement.

cubanbob said...

jr565 give it rest. You sound like a fool. If the Republicans had principles they wouldn't have continued voting for continuing resolutions for the last six years. They caved in like cheap suits for years simply due to the government shutdown bogeyman.
I'm saying that if Trumpy actually means anything he said or like Obama it all has an expiration date I don't know and neither do you but he has on his web site published enough to be seen as reasonably conservative. What are presumably principled Republicans going to do if the party wins the White House and retains control of Congress? Force Trump to keep his campaign promises? I'm beginning to suspect all these Congressional Republicans and part bigshots are scared shitless that Trumpy just might do that-force them to pass budget items one item at a time and he may or may not veto the item if it isn't to his liking. Imagine Trumpy forcing a vote on entitlements be they earned or unearned that limits them only to US citizens. How many Blacks are going to be against that? Or working class whites? How is the Republican Party big shots going to handle that? Every candidate tries to get one promise accomplished and Trump's big thing is illegal immigration and one thing for sure is that those people wouldn't be coming if they can't get benefits, can't send money home and can't find work easily under the table. And a lot of them already here would leave if things got too difficult for them.

jr565 said...

He is a complete democrat when it comes to entitlements. He won't cut any of it. Instead he will fix the problems through cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. He keeps citing that as if it's a mantra. But it was even pointed out to him that if you cut all the waste fraud and abuse it doesn't come close to dealing with entitlements. And he has no answer.
So republicans think entitlements are a big problem and the issue can't be addressed by cutting waste fraud and abuse. I'm sure no repub is going to say "don't cut waste, fraud and abuse" who would argue otherwise? However, they are going to ask what then Donald?
And where is Donald going to argue? Is he going to side with Democrats or republicans? If he sides with democrats are trumpkins going to be mad at him or at republicans who oppose him?
Are the establishment republicans in that scenario the ones who support Trump? Beciase I would say that would make them DEMOCRATS. If you, the Trumpkins would support Trump there you are on the wrong party. And so, why am I having this conversation with you? Join the Democratic Party. They will be glad to never address entitlements either.
Whether Trump gets republican support then requires that he not rule as if entitlements don't have to be addressed. If you want repubs to bend, you are not a republican. I'm sorry.

jr565 said...

Cubanbob wrote:
jr565 give it rest. You sound like a fool. If the Republicans had principles they wouldn't have continued voting for continuing resolutions for the last six years. They caved in like cheap suits for years simply due to the government shutdown bogeyman.

would you want republicans to cave in to Domald Trumps big govt solutions? Or should they fight him on it? This is what I do t get about you. You argue as if the republicans should have stood on principle, but trumps positions would essentially be democratic principles.
And if you elect Trump I assume you want him to pass what he is offering. Which would mean that republicans would in effect be caving in and passing big govt solutions and not standing on principle.
It's like you're mad that Trump didn't oppose Obama but your solution is Obama II under a republican banner. And suddenly everything that Obama was for that you were against you are now for because a "republican" brought it to you instead. . And the republicans would be bad if they didn't go along.

jr565 said...

Big govt is bad, unless trump is bringing it. Then, you are not a republican if you oppose Trumps big govt.
Trump supported TARP. Republicans are sell outs for supporting TARP, but if Trump brought TARP then republicans would be sell outs if they DIDNT support TARP?

Trump supported Obamas stimulus. Republicans are sell outs if they support Obama,s stimulus. But if it's Trump's stimulus? Then republicans are suddenly sell outs if they don't support his stimulus?

Romney is a squish and republicans keep pushing RINO's on us. But Trump an even bigger RINO is GREAT because he's Trump.

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Titus said...

Get on your knees Ryan; open mouth; and suck Trump cock!

Suck Trump cock!
Suck Trump cock!

yea.

jr565 said...

Who's going to pay for the health care? The govts. going to pay for it:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-busted-video-shows-he-lied-on-healthcare-in-debate/article/2584300

So, suppose trump said this exact thing in his first inaugural as to what he wants. Should republicans work with democrats to put out a plan that makes the govt pay for everything? I wonder then what's so bad about Obamacare? As bad as it is, at least th govt isn't paying for everything.
Dont tell me he is for market based solutions when he appears on the news and says otherwise. If that his position, then would you expect repubs to rubber stamp him? Why then would we not just vote for Hilalry care then? WHICH TRUMP SUPPORTED AT THE TIME.

Laver10 said...

I agree with Trump on one thing (can't agree with him on anything else because I don't know where he really stands). He could do or say just about anything and his supporters would yawn. It simply doesn't matter.




harrogate said...

Donald Trump and Paul Ryan discussing abortion.

File that under Things Noone Would Want to Overhear.

Michael K said...

Ryan wants to be courted.

Trump won't do it but might be courteous.

Michael K said...

I seem to have stumbled into the j565 blog.

Amadeus 48 said...

Meanwhile, Paul Ryan is clinging to a 64 point lead over his pro-Trump rival.
Sarah, Sarah, why did you do it?
On an even brighter note, it appears that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz may get Cantored by a Bernie Bro.