It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What happened to Scott Walker?

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Kali74


Since when? My understanding was the Koch Brothers were backing their Florida buddy Rubio.

Personally, I'd love it if the Koch boys switched camps...nothing personal against Rubio. Walker has gotten things done in a tough environment. Most of the others sound good but haven't delivered the goods. I don't believe we have the time to find out if the others are more than talk.

Just my opinion though.



Considering the combined appeal of the pair, Walker/Paul or Paul/Walker would be surprisingly comparable tickets.

I can't say I remember ever having two candidates which were so interchangeable.




posted on May, 10 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: buster2010

Kochs want Walker though so I guess we'll see.


If that is true, that makes an outsider administration actually possible.



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   

What happened to Scott Walker?

The shadow Bilderbergs probably want someone different than Walker so they are maneuver the press and the events to work in favor of the GOP candidate they want. (My guess is Jeb Bush).



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: buster2010

Kochs want Walker though so I guess we'll see.

There is one big difference between Adelson and the Koch brothers. The Koch brothers gives money to both sides they will support whoever is willing to do their bidding Adelson only gives to the right.



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: buster2010

Kochs want Walker though so I guess we'll see.

There is one big difference between Adelson and the Koch brothers. The Koch brothers gives money to both sides they will support whoever is willing to do their bidding Adelson only gives to the right.


Isn't that the sort of cross-party cooperation that we all want to see? Don't we want issue based policy specific discourse followed by a rigorously transparent administration which recognizes its responsibility to pursue the goals promised during the campaign?

It seems that even magnanimousness never goes unpunished. The Koch brothers would appear to be damned if they do and damned if they don't.

The much larger political money machine of public sector unions certainly doesn't spread that money around liberally.
edit on 10-5-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=19330055]greencmp[/post

Nor Soros...



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
He was in South Carolina yesterday preaching war as far as I could ascertain from the clips I heard on radio last night.



He framed the debate in personal terms, describing a fear that “it is not a matter of if” but when another “attempt is made on American soil.” And then he launched into the line that got him his biggest standing ovation of the day: “I want a leader who is willing to take the fight to them before they take the fight to us.”


www.nytimes.com...



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Walker is probably smart enough to recognize the Republican field is getting crowded and there's not much room for him to compete. Some here argue that Walker will challenge the GOP establishment. I laugh at this as there's virtually nothing that separates Walkers policies from the other candidates, aside from Rand Paul. They're all the same the end. Walkers policies are shared by the other candidates, he knows this, he doesn't offer anything different. Lower corporate taxes, big of defense, opposes abortion etc. There's no point in him running and he's smart enough to know. "oh but he's popular in Wisconsin", this is more than just Wisconsin.



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

You raise an interesting point. I see validity in it.

What you fail to mention, and perhaps underrate, is his results. While his policies overlap with other candidates to a large extent, he has fixed things is Wisconsin.

Your preference, Paul, on the other hand has not. ( This is just my opinion, and I have disagreements with both in certain issues).

Therefore, he does offer something different than the rest. Again, results. Assuming, of course, you agree with those 'results'.

No, that doesn't translate to the far slimier venue of the federal game as opposed to state level, but having results at the 'AAA level' is, at least, a potential that may translate in the 'big leagues'.

Two examples come to mind, Reagan was successful at the state level and to a degree was also successful federally.

The other is G.W.. He, also, was successful at the state level, but to many much less successful in the big leagues. (Bush had a far worse scenario than Reagan to deal with as well.)

On a personal level, I suppose I could get behind Paul if he won the nomination, yet I feel he lacks traction/resonance in sufficient numbers to get there.

We have no shortage of articulate, passionate orators. Follow-through with that rhetoric is the real problem for the Republicans. That's why the Tea Party and those like me lean in their direction even exist.

Walker has far more support than just Wisconsin citizens. His support within that state, largely a blue one, is further evidence of his competence.

For me, it's Walker, then Cruz, then Paul. In that order. I won't throw Jeb Bush under the bus based on DNA or the Good old boy network, he just supports too many issues I do not.


edit on 11-5-2015 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join