Posted on 02/06/2021 6:36:54 PM PST by Coronal
In 2017, 55 Republicans decided not to run again.
One of them was Paul Ryan. Now there’s an elderly person huh.
Yes. And Paul Ryan was the person most responsible for opposing President Trump and his reforms in the House during the first two years.
Paul Ryan may well be the most responsible for losing the House in 2018.
Paul Ryan approved of the investigation into President Trump by Muller.
Paul Ryan was a RINO never Trumper from the start.
I do not see how keeping Paul Ryan in the house to actively work against President Trump, would have helped us.
The main problem is half of the Republican members of Congress either routinely lie to get elected, then turn on their Constutuents, or are too afraid of the Media to do the right thing.
Three times more Republicans announced, than Democrats.
We had 55 incumbents leave. They would have had an over 80% chance of holding onto their seats.
Instead we had 55 open seats with a 50% chance of hanging on.
And who engineered that?
Paul Ryan certainly had a hand in it.
[Having a position in either the House or the Senate makes them members of the most powerful, privileged clubs on the planet, with perhaps the exception of the upper levels of the CCP]
By contrast, China is, like all absolute monarchies, a gigantic protection racket. To forestall the possibility of tycoons talking their marbles with them and departing for foreign shores from which they might finance rival protection rackets**, the regime offers the modern equivalent of viscountcies, dukedoms and lordships. Basically, the wealthy are slotted into pro forma party committees where they pretend to discuss policies already predetermined by the emperor (aka Xi Jinping), but merely repeat approved buzzwords and slogans. But that’s not all these tycoons are there to do. They show up to form alliances with up and coming aristocrats (aka career Party members) to keep their businesses from being looted. They have no choice - it’s either get an oar in, or be expropriated.
Bottom line is that the two systems are very different. Any comparisons are almost always orthogonal.
* And the summary disposal of enemies or mere annoyances represents only the extremes of what’s possible under such regimes - luxury beyond your wildest dreams is there for the taking. We’re not talking some overpriced crapshack in Gay City CA a la Pelosi. We’re talking Buckingham Palace scale luxury.
Based on materials leaked from a single Panama law firm, the Xi Jinping clan was worth at least $400m from Xi’s various peculations before he ascended the Dragon Throne. What about all the other law firms that managed to keep their clients’ information confidential? And what about the jump in collections after Xi was enthroned?
An American President can’t even have a governor put down riots in his home state. As emperor, Xi Jinping not only hand picks provincial governors, he can have them killed. That difference in personal power is why Xi was probably worth at least billions before he got to the top. That’s two orders of magnitude above the Bidens.
If you’re cynical enough, you might say that what Xi is doing isn’t even corruption. Think of Xi as a farmer, and China as the Xi family farm. His wealth, from that standpoint, is just the result of superior agricultural management.
** Sun Yat-sen, the man who organized the overthrow of the last de jure emperor, spent decades hoovering up cash from Chinese emigres. In 1911, his efforts finally bore fruit.
Miles Kwok, one of Steve Bannon’s associates, appears to be working on something similar, and his musings on what the nouveau Chinese royals (aka career Party members) are up to, can be perused here:
The point was that Paul was not elderly.
It wasn’t that he was someone we wanted.
Of course it was good that he was gone, but his seat did go
50/50, instead of 85-90/15-10.
Just 17 Democrats telegraphed they would step down during that
time frame.
They exposed 17 seats to 50/50 instead of 85/15.
I’m sure Alabama can replace him with a good young conservative.
By design. Republican politicians prefer to be in the minority. That way they don't have to actually do anything.
I wouldn’t argue with that.
I’m sure McConnell feels a lot less pressure.
[In 2017, 55 Republicans and 17 Democrats decided not to run
again.
Three times more Republicans announced, than Democrats.
We had 55 incumbents leave. They would have had an over 80%
chance of holding onto their seats.
Instead we had 55 open seats with a 50% chance of hanging on.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3932350/posts?page=49#49]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_subcommittee#House_Democratic_Caucus
Again, it’s people thinking about themselves first, and the
nation dead last.
We need seats. Period!
What we are going through right now could have been avoided.
If 30 of those people had stayed in Congress, we would
have the majority right now. Actually, it’s just 15 if they
all got re-elected, or if Republicans replaced them anyway.
Please don’t prattle that term limits dead horse again.
It didn’t work the first time and it won’t work the 10th.
[Please don’t prattle that term limits dead horse again.
It didn’t work the first time and it won’t work the 10th.]
Smile...
Not sure I’d be real popular at first. Smile...
Thanks for the nice reply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.