Was there a sale on scare quotes at WalMart or something?
If the race lasts another 266 days, it’ll be a race for Minority Leader. 
And of course it it lasts just a little bit *less *than 266 days, it would be the longest Speakership race, and for the shortest Speakership. That would be perfect.
Um, I don’t know if you read the OP but he’s leaving office voluntarily. So this argument doesn’t make sense. Why sell your integrity over something you’re going to throw away anyway. If he had criticized Trump worst case scenario he would be in the same place that is he now, but with his integrity intact.
His integrity intact but possibly not his favored taxes legislation. He wasn’t cowardly, he was merely pragmatic. That’s not a defense of him. Being pragmatic can be shitty and immoral if your goal is awful and the things you let slide are even more awful.
two for one and the third one’s free.
Paul Ryan supposed integrity isn’t really that great to begin with [PolitiFact Wisconsinranking] and not standing up to at least Trump’s most egregious lies does not speak to any genuine political will. Even Mitch McConnell has found enough character deep within this chin-folds to criticize Trump’s tempestuousness but Ryan just stands there with a slighly vacant look on his face. There is pragmatism and then there is just standing there while the building is on fire and not even calling 911 because you don’t want to use up your precious minutes on your cell phone plan.
Stranger
Of course. But that means that the discussion simply boils down to just another political/ideological disagreement.
Some people prefer to portray it as a matter of overarching principle when it’s the other guy doing the pragmatizing, but in reality there’s very little disagreement about pragmatizing as a general principle. It’s all about what and to what extent you think some public policy goal is positive or negative, and the rest is mostly a natural outgrowth of that.
Except during the Obama administration, when the GOP’s guiding principle of public policy, with Ryan at the forefront, was reflexive opposition.
But the funny thing about this discussion is that we mostly agree about Trump’s incompetence and the danger he presents to the country. And AFAICT we both think Ryan probably recognized this. You just don’t think that public office holders, or at least Ryan, have a duty to criticize and oppose that incompetence and danger. And I still can’t figure out why.
His “favored taxes legislation” passed 113 days ago.
So his silence since then does seem pretty cowardly.
Arrrrrrrrrre you sure you can’t figure it out?
We are talking about the same guy whose word John McCain, of all people, wouldn’t trust in order to vote Yes on the health care bill, right? That Paul Ryan?
I suspect I can, but I’d still like to read F-P’s response if he has one.
He criticized Trump over the steel tariffs. So maybe he’s not cowardly so much as he doesn’t care about what you and iiandyiii want Trump criticized for.
OK, so maybe Ryan doesn’t care about the possibility that Trump could start a nuclear war for random reasons. We all have issues we consider to be of lesser importance.
Or maybe he doesn’t think Trump is going to start a nuclear war. I don’t.
Well, not intentionally. I direct your attention to Mrs. O’Leary’s cow.
I don’t think he is, either.
Presidents during the part of my lifetime that I was paying sufficient attention that I didn’t think would start a nuclear war:
LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Dubya, Obama, Trump.
Presidents during the part of my lifetime that I was paying sufficient attention that I could assume the risk of their starting a nuclear war was pretty much zero:
LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush Sr., Clinton, Dubya, Obama.
You see the difference? The first group (all of them, Katie!), I didn’t think would start a nuclear war. IOW, <50% chance.
The second group (all but Reagan and Trump) I figured their chance of starting a nuclear war was approximately zero.
A couple of weeks ago, Sen. Lindsey Graham said he thought there was a 30% chance that Trump would launch an attack on North Korea. Obviously, if that were to happen, NK would retaliate with nukes if possible. So the chance that Trump would start a nuclear war, according to Lindsey Graham, is (0.3)*P(NK is able to launch a nuclear missile in the event of such an attack).
I don’t know what that second probability is, but one can hardly count on its being infinitesimally small.
So just not thinking Trump will start a nuclear war isn’t enough. The question is, should one think that there is, or isn’t, a heightened risk of such a war with Trump as President, compared to Obama, Clinton, or the Bushes?
I thought the question was whether Ryan should be publicly saying “Hey Trump, please don’t start a nuclear war”.
By start, you mean intentional. That’s where your logic fails. Trump walks blindly through mine fiends, without a plan or a map. What can go wrong?