Paul Ryan selected for Veep

Amerika · 13-08-2012 06:37PM

I know 2011 was like about a century ago in political terms, but I recall the majority of seniors preferred Paul Ryan’s deficit plans to President Obama’s plans.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147287/Americans-Divided-Ryan-Obama-Deficit-Plans.aspx?version=print

Canvasser · 13-08-2012 07:26PM

Denerick wrote: »

The American deficit could be solved easily if they simplified their tax system so that it no longer resembles a plutocrat's wet dream (Only wealthy people can afford the tax lawyers that enable to pay so little) and if they withdrew something like 20 to 25% of their military spending (Which is relatively painless also as it would mean huge reductions in ground forces troops which are an anachronism in a thoroughly nuclear and technological age.)

There is no political will, and the american middle class have the wool firmly pulled over their eyes by a corporate media.

By raising taxes on high incomes, introducing a wealth tax and cutting military expenditure, the budget could easily be balanced and the deficit wiped out over a decade. However the US is a plutocracy and the country will continue to become more like Putin's Russia.

20Cent · 13-08-2012 08:53PM

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Can you link me to a breakdown of the $716 billion Obama medicare cuts?

Can't find a breakdown its pretty recent news.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/difference-between-paul-ryan-barack-obama-medicare.php
"The Medicare cuts, passed in the Affordable Care Act, come in the form of reimbursement reductions to hospitals, Medicaid prescription drugs and supplemental private insurance plans under Medicare Advantage. The Congressional Budget Office projects that they’ll extend the solvency of Medicare by eight years."

[/QUOTE]

Atlantis50 wrote: »

What's the source for this? Any independent policy think-tanks to back up that claim?

Politifcat labelled the claim that the Ryan plan 'would end medicare as we know it' as the lie of the year 2011. See here:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/dec/20/lie-year-democrats-claims-republicans-voted-end-me/

Never heard of politifact.

The Idyll Race · 13-08-2012 09:50PM

Canvasser wrote: »

By raising taxes on high incomes, introducing a wealth tax and cutting military expenditure, the budget could easily be balanced and the deficit wiped out over a decade. However the US is a plutocracy and the country will continue to become more like Putin's Russia.

In what way? Can't see a Pussy Riot case happening under Obama anytime soon.

Canvasser · 13-08-2012 09:53PM

The Idyll Race wrote: »

In what way? Can't see a Pussy Riot case happening under Obama anytime soon.

The US incarcerates far more people than Russia does. And police brutality is just as bad.

However I mean in the way that a small number of billionaire plutocrats control the country while tens of millions live in poverty.

WhatNowForUs? · 13-08-2012 10:07PM

Duck Soup wrote: »

Mark is right, this is a choice that was forced upon Romney because the Obama campaign is dictating the narrative of the race. Unless he shakes things up, Romney goes down in November not with a bang but with a low drone about dressage.

A few things. The percentage of undecided voters is abnormally small for this point in the election cycle - one poll had it at between 4 and 5%. The two most recent polls, CNN and Fox, have Obama ahead 7 and 9 points. The broader problem is the narrative one. The Obama campaign has successfully cast Romney as a self-interested plutocrat with something to hide and of no fixed principles. Perhaps most importantly, they've framed Romney as being a friend of Wall Street and the 1% and an enemy of the middle class.

The Ryan pick has big risks - if they can hang the Ryan plan around the ticket's neck (Romney's already disavowed it, but typically hasn't said a word about what would be in its place), then they're as good as dead in the water. In that sense, it's 'bold'. There are certainly upsides, such as the possibility that Ryan might be able to get the conversation back onto the economy without it getting bogged down in Bain Capital, off-shore accounts, tax records etc. Factor in though, that while Ryan is undeniably smart, that doesn't necessarily translate into either likable or able to communicate successfully to a great mass of voters.

There's a strong possibility - especially given the strength of the Obama campaign - that the conversation about the economy spearheaded by Ryan becomes a conversation about Ryan dismantling Medicare.

So Ryan is the hold-what-we-have candidate. It's a sign that they're not going to try for Latino or black votes or anyone outside of the base. Ryan is famously hardworking, so my guess is that his job for the next 2 and half months is to criss-cross the country, getting the white Christian coalition fired up and behind the Republicans. An animated base, plus the voter suppression measures that have been put in place by Republican state legislatures across America, they're hoping might just sneak them a win.

Hi. Can you explain to me what you mean by voter suppression measures

Denerick · 13-08-2012 10:13PM

WhatNowForUs? wrote: »

Hi. Can you explain to me what you mean by voter suppression measures

Republicans are cynically introducing rules across the country that requires voters to present an ID card. The voters LEAST likely to own one are poor and/or minorities. Its not quite as blatant as the Jim Crow laws, and the effect won't be so extreme on voting rights, but its so callously cynical and restrictive and tactical and downright awful that any man of principle would immediately resign his membership of the said party in question.

WhatNowForUs? · 13-08-2012 10:14PM

UNI4MER wrote: »

Ryan is articulate and his plan is the only one put forth that deals with medicare and SS both going broke. But it is all about the message and how it gets articulated. There are so many problems caused by Obama's policies it's like a buffet on where to start. If it weren't for the mainstream media protecting Obama and the Dems any candidate would be way ahead of Obama by now. Somehow the Republicans have to take the message to the unemployed and give them a reason to vote for Romney and that cannot be done by being polite. Reagan won by 2 landslides as an underdog because he was able to deliver a clear and concise conservative message and no Republican since him has tried to do the same.

Why would the unemployed vote for Romney

Canvasser · 13-08-2012 10:17PM

WhatNowForUs? wrote: »

Why would the unemployed vote for Romney

Because they want to try a radical new diet

Suryavarman · 13-08-2012 11:03PM

Denerick wrote: »

Republicans are cynically introducing rules across the country that requires voters to present an ID card. The voters LEAST likely to own one are poor and/or minorities. Its not quite as blatant as the Jim Crow laws, and the effect won't be so extreme on voting rights, but its so callously cynical and restrictive and tactical and downright awful that any man of principle would immediately resign his membership of the said party in question.

Is that the best you can do? An ID card isn't exactly a large expense. In Ireland at least it only costs €10 for an age card and around €5 for passport photos. I fail to see how anyone couldn't find ~€15 for an ID card.

Surely this would help reduce voter fraud. Hardly a bad thing is it?

Denerick · 13-08-2012 11:21PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

Is that the best you can do? An ID card isn't exactly a large expense. In Ireland at least it only costs €10 for an age card and around €5 for passport photos. I fail to see how anyone couldn't find ~€15 for an ID card.

Surely this would help reduce voter fraud. Hardly a bad thing is it?

We're not talking about Ireland, we're talking about America. And this has nothing to do with voter fraud. If it was a utilitarian measure it would be backed by both parties rather than propagated by Republicans in swing states. You'd have to be painfully naive to think otherwise.

People who generally don't need a form of ID card won't get one. People who can't afford to travel abroad on foreign holidays don't have passports. Its cynical in that the republicans know it will suppress turnout among the poor and minorities and are doing it under the cover of 'voter fraud' (And which you are buying into)

Black Swan · 14-08-2012 12:00AM

Overheal wrote: »

And that will continue to be the case, indefinitely, until it's altered. I'd personally rather they tackled it now, not just because I don't want to pay more money into a system I will never see a return from, but because it needs to happen.

There will always be some good excuse not to do it.

While I agree that Social Security needs major revisions, for Paul Ryan to start campaigning as VP candidate about major changes between now and November 2012, as he did during Republican controlled Congress/GW Bush Administration with his Social Security privatisation bills, may be perceived as a threat to Social Security in general.

Millions of voting retirees that are living from Social Security paycheck to paycheck during this Great Recession are more worried about paying the mortgage or rent TODAY and NEXT MONTH, not some year in the future when someone predicts that the fund will be insolvent. All the Dems have to do is fan the flames of uncertainty about these paychecks TODAY, ignoring the future, and Romney/Ryan will lose votes, perhaps millions of votes given the numbers reported above for 2008.

Romney may be questioning the merit of making Paul Ryan's Social Security issue a part of the presidential platform for November.

southsiderosie · 14-08-2012 12:46AM

Suryavarman wrote: »

Is that the best you can do? An ID card isn't exactly a large expense. In Ireland at least it only costs €10 for an age card and around €5 for passport photos. I fail to see how anyone couldn't find ~€15 for an ID card.

Surely this would help reduce voter fraud. Hardly a bad thing is it?

Voter fraud is not an issue. The Bush administration found 120 cases over a five-year period - this is peanuts given that there are over 200 million eligible voters in the United States. This is about purging voter lists, and blocking poor minorities, who overwhelmingly support the Democrats, from voting - and there is a long, sad history of this in the US. The intent to suppress minority voting becomes even more obvious when paired with the fact that the GOP has moved to restrict early voting and weekend voting because the people most likely to take advantage of this disproportionately voted Democrat in the last general election. The ex-chair of the Florida GOP said this explicitly in a recent (unrelated) deposition.

If these states enact voter ID laws for the election, there is an argument that they have to make provisions for people to get a government-issued id for free - otherwise this constitutes a poll tax, which is illegal under the 24th Amendment of the US Constitution. When the amendment passed, Lyndon Johnson famously said, 'Nobody should be too poor to vote". Multiple lawsuits over the voter ID issues have been filed at the state level, and will likely turn into a federal case at some point; I would guess that the Supreme Court will have to rule on this in the next few years.

What is really sickening about all of these voter id campaigns is that they have their origin in the very states that denied blacks the right to vote until 1965. To this day, many of these states are still monitored by the federal government for practices that disenfranchise minorities. We Americans have a short memory when it comes to our own history, but the tradition of minority vote suppression lives on, and the dog-whistling around these campaigns in 2012 is a sad indictment of today's Party of Lincoln.

poeticseraphim · 14-08-2012 04:33AM

southsiderosie wrote: »

Voter fraud is not an issue. The Bush administration found 120 cases over a five-year period - this is peanuts given that there are over 200 million eligible voters in the United States. This is about purging voter lists, and blocking poor minorities, who overwhelmingly support the Democrats, from voting - and there is a long, sad history of this in the US. The intent to suppress minority voting becomes even more obvious when paired with the fact that the GOP has moved to restrict early voting and weekend voting because the people most likely to take advantage of this disproportionately voted Democrat in the last general election. The ex-chair of the Florida GOP said this explicitly in a recent (unrelated) deposition.

If these states enact voter ID laws for the election, there is an argument that they have to make provisions for people to get a government-issued id for free - otherwise this constitutes a poll tax, which is illegal under the 24th Amendment of the US Constitution. When the amendment passed, Lyndon Johnson famously said, 'Nobody should be too poor to vote". Multiple lawsuits over the voter ID issues have been filed at the state level, and will likely turn into a federal case at some point; I would guess that the Supreme Court will have to rule on this in the next few years.

What is really sickening about all of these voter id campaigns is that they have their origin in the very states that denied blacks the right to vote until 1965. To this day, many of these states are still monitored by the federal government for practices that disenfranchise minorities. We Americans have a short memory when it comes to our own history, but the tradition of minority vote suppression lives on, and the dog-whistling around these campaigns in 2012 is a sad indictment of today's Party of Lincoln.

To be honest the fact remains thatwhatever their motivations are it is still easily obtained though no?

How are votes being supressed if all must nave voter id?

The answer that some are less likely to have id than others does not justify calling it voter supression they can get id if they are passionate about their voting rights.

The republicans are not supressing some...but rather relying on voter apathy...

If voter id is made equally available i don't think you could call it supression.

I have no doubt that the motivation behind it is self serving but really if this actually does impact on voting then people reallying don't want to vote and THAT is what is stopping them.

Memnoch · 14-08-2012 09:05AM

poeticseraphim wrote: »

To be honest the fact remains thatwhatever their motivations are it is still easily obtained though no?

How are votes being supressed if all must nave voter id?

The answer that some are less likely to have id than others does not justify calling it voter supression they can get id if they are passionate about their voting rights.

The republicans are not supressing some...but rather relying on voter apathy...

If voter id is made equally available i don't think you could call it supression.

I have no doubt that the motivation behind it is self serving but really if this actually does impact on voting then people reallying don't want to vote and THAT is what is stopping them.

Not everyone is equally passionate about politics. People who are more affluent or wealthy are more likely to acquire ID cards through the normal passage of their lives as and when they need them. For poor people this is often not the case.

Now all of a sudden, if they want to vote they have to go and get an ID card. It's all about adding barriers and making the process more difficult/cumbersome for these voters than it would be for those who've already got ID cards.

Also getting ID cards isn't always straight forward. You have to provide proof of address and other documents which can be a pain in themselves depending on the personal situation of the voter concerned.

It also makes it more difficult for organisers to bus large loads of people over to help them exercise their right on the last day.

The INTENT of the GOP is clear. To reduce democratic turnout in swing states by making things more difficult for the poor and minorities by using voter fraud (which as rosie has pointed out is a NON ISSUE) as a smoke screen.

It is utterly against the spirit and idea of basic democracy and shamefully self-serving.

WhatNowForUs? · 14-08-2012 09:57AM

Hi thanks for the replys to my query. To add to it, isn't it a requirement in the states to have an id card on you at all times, if this is the case should this not be good enough for voting rather then having people get another id card.

20Cent · 14-08-2012 10:06AM

Here is a video of Joe Biden explaining the 700B "cut". Its savings from getting rid of waste, overcharging, providing preemptive care and other things. The republicans are accusing Obama of not cutting and cutting simultaneously.

http://youtu.be/AEbjeyA1SNU

Duck Soup · 14-08-2012 12:52PM

WhatNowForUs? wrote: »

Hi. Can you explain to me what you mean by voter suppression measures

Others have answered this, but I'd be happy to give you my take on it.

At the start of this year, there were already 22 new laws and 2 executive actions restricting voting that had been adopted in 17 states. And there were at least 74 more restrictive bills still pending in 24 states, aiming to take effect before the general election. That's 98 pieces of legislation and executive orders to make it more difficult to vote.

Of those 98, all are or were being proposed by Republican state legislatures or politicians. All of them.

Of course, the justification is the integrity of the vote. So just how under threat is the electoral process from things such as voter fraud? Justin Levitt, Loyola Law Professor, did an analysis of in-person voter fraud for the Brennan Center for Justice. His conclusion was that "It is more likely that an individual will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls."

To give you some specific examples:

In Missouri in 2000 and 2002, hundreds of voters were alleged to have voted twice, either within the state or once in Kansas and once in Missouri. Of 18 Kansas City cases that reporters followed up, 13 were affirmatively shown to result from clerical error. Of all cases of irregularities, only four cases were substantiated (amounting to six votes within the state). That's an overall documented fraud rate of 0.0003%.

In New Jersey in 2004, 4,397 voters were alleged to have voted twice within the state, and 6,572 voters were alleged to have voted once in New Jersey and once elsewhere. Many of these alleged double votes were actually flawed matches of names and/or birthdates on voter rolls. Only eight cases were actually documented through signatures on poll books; at least five signatures appear to match. Even if all eight proved to reveal fraud, however, that would amount to an overall double voting rate of 0.0002%.

In New York in 2002 and 2004, between 400 and 1,000 voters were alleged to have voted once in New York and once in Florida. These allegations were also prompted by a flawed attempt to match names and birthdates. From public records only two cases were substantiated, yielding an overall documented fraud rate of 0.000009%.

Lest you think I'm just cherry picking certain elections and votes, let's take a look at an analysis of the historic pattern and prevalence. News21, a Carnegie-Knight investigative reporting project, analyzed 2,068 reported fraud cases and found 10 cases of alleged in-person voter impersonation since 2000.

With 146 million registered voters in the United States, those represent about one for every 15 million prospective voters.

And so on and so on. So why do it? Simple enough. Under the new laws, the most commonly-demanded photo IDs are passports and drivers' licences. About 11% of Americans have neither. Amongst African-Americans however, that rate is about 25%. African-Americans voted 90% for Obama in the last election. To borrow an Americanism, you do the math.

And Republican legislatures are strangely picky as to what's acceptable ID and what's not. In Texas, student ID isn't acceptable as proof of identity but gun licences are. Go figure, huh?

The numbers that could be affected are huge. At least 600,000 already registered voters in Texas don't possess the necessary ID to cast a ballot in November. According to the Brennan Center, nationally, the total amount of people that lack the necessary ID to meet the new state laws is more than 5m.

And don't think it's just ID laws. The search for ways of suppressing the vote (statistically, the higher the percentage of people that vote in an election, the more it favours the Democrats) is inventive, bordering on quixotic.

In some states, they've banned same day registration - that is, the ability to register and vote on election day.

In other states, they've banned Sunday voting. This obviously is completely unconnected with the fact that Sunday is traditionally a huge day amongst African-American churches for 'Souls To The Polls' - taking churchgoers to the voting stations after services.

In Florida (yes, them again), they've banned voter registration drivers. From the Brennan Center:

Jill Cicciarelli is a high school civics teacher in New Smyrna Beach, Florida whose job includes preparing students for civic life. Last fall, Ms. Cicciarelli was notified that her name had been forwarded to the Secretary of State for violating Florida’s election laws, meaning she could face $1000 in fines and other penalties. Her offense: setting up a voter registration table at her school that helped about 50 eligible students register to vote.

What Ms. Cicciarelli did last fall was the same thing she had been doing for years, and something I hope many of you will consider doing as well. She told the Daytona Beach News Journal, “I just want them to be participating in our democracy. The more participation we have, the stronger our democracy will be.”

But what she didn’t know was that Florida had just passed a law requiring anyone who helps others register to vote to jump through a series of hoops or face hefty fines and other legal consequences.

But for me, pride of place for Republican efforts to drive the vote down as low as humanly possible in a partisan manner must go to Ohio.

All across America, they've been trying to restrict the numbers of day of early voting. A third of all votes in the last election were early votes and over 50% were cast for Obama.

So, first Ohio cut back early voting from 35 days to 11 days, including on Sundays. Then they enacted legislation banning early voting on the 3 days before election day. (Early voting in Ohio in 2008 allowed Obama to build up a huge lead that McCain couldn't overcome on election day). Oddly, active duty members of the military (who usually lean Republican) are exempted from this.

But that's not the cherry on top of the Ohio icing. Republicans in Ohio are now voting to expand voting hours for the Presidential election in districts that voted Republican in the last election, but curtail them in districts where voters favoured Obama in the last election.

So from October 1st, heavily Democratic cities like Cleveland, Columbus, Akron and Toledo, early voting hours will be limited to 8am to 5pm on weekdays, with no voting at the weekends.

But in solidly Republican counties in Ohio such as Warren County and Butler County, GOP election commissioners have approved expanded early voting hours on nights and weekends. Where there is a tied vote, the Ohio Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted has broken the tie by casting in favour of his fellow Republicans.

Noted the Cincinnati Enquirer: “The counties where Husted has joined other Republicans to deny expanded early voting strongly backed then-candidate Barack Obama in 2008, while most of those where the extra hours will stand heavily supported GOP nominee John McCain.”

Does it all matter? Hell yeah. Estimates are that voter suppression measures (voter ID; restricted voting hours; restricted voting days; banning voter registration drives; banning same day registation; and not forgetting purging voting rolls) can make a 3% swing in favour of Republicans on election day. In other words, it could swing the election.

Amerika · 14-08-2012 02:04PM

southsiderosie wrote: »

Voter fraud is not an issue. The Bush administration found 120 cases over a five-year period - this is peanuts given that there are over 200 million eligible voters in the United States...

It's interesting that those who argue against the requirements of ID in order to vote, when making the claim of few actual cases, fail to mention that voter fraud is widely reported but often not investigated nor prosecuted.

A fairly recent election, and its consequences, should illustrate the need to combat voter fraud. It involves the election of Al Franken to the US Senate.

Republican Senator Norm Coleman led Democrat Al Franken by 725 votes after the election in 2008. Franken and the Democrats utilized an army of lawyers to challenge the results. Afterward, Coleman was still considered the winner, but his lead was down to 206 votes. But still litigation by the Democrats continued until somehow it was determined that Franken was ahead by 312, and was suddenly declared the winner.

It has been reported that 1,099 convicted felons illegally voted in the 2008 Minnesota election. It has also been noted that about 74 percent of felons would vote Democratic in presidential and U.S. Senate, according to analysis of demographic and voting data of elections dating back to 1972 that I’ve read.

Franken’s declared victory gave Senate Democrats that 60th vote needed to pass ObamaCare and overcome a Republican filibuster. Therefore without Franken's vote ObamaCare might not exist today.

It doesn't take a grand leap of faith to realize voter fraud is real and has dire consequences.

Canvasser · 14-08-2012 02:18PM

Amerika wrote: »

It's interesting that those who argue against the requirements of ID in order to vote, when making the claim of few actual cases, fail to mention that voter fraud is widely reported but often not investigated nor prosecuted.

A fairly recent election, and its consequences, should illustrate the need to combat voter fraud. It involves the election of Al Franken to the US Senate.

Republican Senator Norm Coleman led Democrat Al Franken by 725 votes after the election in 2008. Franken and the Democrats utilized an army of lawyers to challenge the results. Afterward, Coleman was still considered the winner, but his lead was down to 206 votes. But still litigation by the Democrats continued until somehow it was determined that Franken was ahead by 312, and was suddenly declared the winner.

It has been reported that 1,099 convicted felons illegally voted in the 2008 Minnesota election. It has also been noted that about 74 percent of felons would vote Democratic in presidential and U.S. Senate, according to analysis of demographic and voting data of elections dating back to 1972 that I’ve read.

Franken’s declared victory gave Senate Democrats that 60th vote needed to pass ObamaCare and overcome a Republican filibuster. Therefore without Franken's vote ObamaCare might not exist today.

It doesn't take a grand leap of faith to realize voter fraud is real and has dire consequences.

Dire consequences? Which dire consequences are these?

Amerika · 14-08-2012 02:57PM

Canvasser wrote: »

Dire consequences? Which dire consequences are these?

ObamaCare… which has historically experienced very high (as high as 67% recently) unfavorability ratings from the American people.

Duck Soup · 14-08-2012 03:17PM

Ryan's off to a not particularly auspicious start. The video of his attempted speech at the Ohio state fair is near the base of the page. Notice (a) that he's a painfully bad public speaker and (b) Fox News manages to talk over the second set of hecklers, eventually having to cut away from their live feed completely.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/paul-ryans-iowa-speech-opens-with-hecklers-getting-dragged-away-and-they-just-keep-coming/

Amerika · 14-08-2012 03:27PM

Can you imagine what the mainstream media would be like if a protestor punched a volunteer, and rushed the stage, causing the arrest of three individuals at a Joe Biden event? Thank god it was only Paul Ryan, eh?

Brian? · 14-08-2012 04:15PM

Amerika wrote: »

Can you imagine what the mainstream media would be like if a protestor punched a volunteer, and rushed the stage, causing the arrest of three individuals at a Joe Biden event? Thank god it was only Paul Ryan, eh?

Fox isn't the mainstream media?

Overheal · 14-08-2012 04:20PM

And Glenn Beck is being censored.

Duck Soup · 14-08-2012 04:27PM

Overheal wrote: »

And Glenn Beck is being censored.

If only.

Amerika · 14-08-2012 04:29PM

This is for those (if there are any here :rolleyes:) interested in looking beyond the radical and disingenuous hysteria coming from the democrats over Paul Ryan.

Mr. Ryan’s plan on Medicare reform seems to be the only plan that won't send grandma over a cliff.

Here are a couple of good reads regarding Ryan’s plans.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444318104577585690172683560.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

http://news.investors.com/article/622012/201208131805/ryan-budget-is-not-radical.htm?p=full

Amerika · 14-08-2012 04:57PM

briankeating wrote: »

Fox isn't the mainstream media?

Well, I was kinda referring to media sources like the supposed "America's Most Trusted News Source" CNN.

And let’s have a look at this, as I play on another tagline of theirs... "I report. You decide." Typical!

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/08/13/soledad-obrien-caught-reading-liberal-blog-during-heated-debate-romne

( I’m shocked Obrien didn’t get a gig hosting a presidential debate.

)

hooradiation · 14-08-2012 05:01PM

Amerika wrote: »

Mr. Ryan’s plan on Medicare reform seems to be the only plan that won't send grandma over a cliff.

It's true.
Ryan's plan is more a "die in a ditch" kind of job.

Amerika · 14-08-2012 05:54PM

hooradiation wrote: »

It's true.
Ryan's plan is more a "die in a ditch" kind of job.

How so?

Paul Ryan selected for Veep

Comments