Why Walker might be the best choice.

a reply to: Monger

Gee, did I question his right? Nope!

Do I question those from other lands wanting their cake and eating it too? Yep!

As you say, he has the right, so do I....

a reply to: Willtell

Yep, high union wages and benefits at the expense of the rest of us is 'good for the country'. Yeah, right.

Of course the democrat policies, as reflected by Obama, has gotten us where? Further in debt, less jobs/lower wages, more welfare and of course...a bright future.

Put the next load in the back forty, please...

a reply to: nwtrucker

Unions all over the country in America have been the cause of Middle class rise.


The abolition of unions cause wages to go down across the whole country


Those are facts

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: nwtrucker

I see your point.

I just don't think the "cult of personality" will work anymore.

And the country is so divided, that we need something different.

A ticket that combines the best of republican ideals and the honesty and integrity of Sanders might go farther than we could imagine.

Just a caveat, I like Sanders, just don't agree with him on policies.

There are only two ways this is going to ever get resolved. 1) "And the country is so divided,..." that it should be divided. This country isn't 50 countries in one....but it certainly is 5 or 6 countries in one and they have virtually nothing in common with one another and in many policy aspects, their interests are diametrically opposed. 2) "Republican ideals.....?" Get a clue....the only people who still vote Republican are the white, over 50, top 25% in wealth category.....its a rapidly disappearing demographic. They used to make up near 40% of the voting public; that number goes down with each funeral. Their ideals resonate with no one but themselves. So....if you can't agree to let the Regions of Common Interest go their own way, then your next best bet is a One Party State. The longer the US "hangs" together, the more likely I see that happening.

The biggest problem I've seen develop in the US over the last 40 years is that there aren't any "political answers" to anything because the political divide gets in the way of anything ever getting done except in, perhaps a few cases and then its a piece-meal, haphazard "solution by committee" type answer that ends up creating more problems than the one it was designed to address. With a One Party System that all changes.

a reply to: TonyS

I see you omit dissolving this union and letting those "5 or 6 countries" go their own way.

I'm curious as to your reasoning for that omission.

Walker is too War Hawkish for me. Isn't there anyone on the right that doesn't believe in War? Is Paul the closest? But even he is unclear it seems.

Plus I don't think he appeals to anyone on the left. A walker primary win, ensures a Hillary or Sanders White house.

a reply to: Willtell

I agree with that with two qualifiers.

The first being it was trade unions, not public sector unions that provided that leverage.

The second is that it is a historical fact, not a current one. There are, these days, numerous fields that pay higher than most unions jobs. Foe example, the current high growth, and as a result, high demand industry is oil.

At least the trade unions recognize that their companies have to survive financially or they all lose. Not so in the public sector. The "bottomless well" mentality is well ingrained in the public sector.

The pendulum has well swung in the other direction since those early days. Mandatory membership with dues used for political donations, irrespective of member wishes. ( I saw one report,[unverified] that up to 60% of teachers had opted out of the union in Wisconsin with Walker's rule changes.)

I am not against trade unions, personally, if they can negotiate higher wages and the company can survive it, all the more power to them. The qualifier being, the higher the wage increase, the higher the chance someone will come in and undercut that company and when the difference is too extreme, that company will cease to exist...a two edged sword, so to speak. If the members are willing to take that risk, so be it.

Simply put, if everyone was "union" then the costs would be far higher as well for other products and services...back to square one.

Bottom line? Balance. It's been out of balance, at least in the public sector unions, for too long.

Here is a ugly fact about Walker. He is a Nazi supporter,( Bush Family and WWII) he is a supporter for big Corporations and their lobbyist. If Walker wins We The People will see more freedoms stripped from the American people and more wars. Walker is an Illuminati and will carry out the NWO. Hillary is the same. These people are our enemies and they are out to destroy what is left of the United States. Proof? Anyone can check their voting stats in Washington. These people want your guns, but We The People have no rights to take theirs. The criminals in Washington want to keep their guns. Why you ask? because the corrupt politicians are scared to death of We The People, because we are waking up and we see the tyranny they have committed and they are going to commit more. These politions work for the globalist and for their NWO agendas.

We need a politician who is not bought and payed for by the globalist lobbyist and the only one that is running that is NOT taken bribes from the global lobbyist is D Trump.

I do not like Trump myself, however he does speak the truth on many issues. Trump is a threat to the NWO globalist.

Walker is the best choice for the elite billionaires and millionaires not the middle or lower classes


The GOP philosophy can’t do anything to help anyone but the rich


Look at all the recent past GOP presidents and what exactly did they do for anyone save the rich?

a reply to: Willtell

Sorry, but the evidence I see is it's the taxpayers who have benefitted from Walker.

Methinks the rest of the country could do with some of that as well.

Perhaps that's why he garners little to no support from the Republican Establishment? Because he's for the rich?

Adjust your template, it seems not to apply in this case....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: beezzer

The point I'd raise to rebut is Wisconsin was a "Blue State". It is now a Red State.

He has swung Democrat voters over in sufficient numbers to win his mandate repeatedly. That indicates, at least to some degree, the ability to unite the state voters.

So I'd say he can get democrat votes. How far back do we have to go to find a Republican that could do that, in numbers?

Reagan.

Having said that, I don't disagree that more left votes can be gain with the right second slot person...or even the other way around with Walker as the number two man.

I still go with im as the number one, though, due to the above.

Wisconsin was a blue state when Jim Doyle was Governor. When he left, the Governorship was up for grabs. Walker's opponent Barrett received unenthusiastic support from the Unions and just wasn't particularly charismatic, and Walker squeaked by with about half the votes.

You have to remember Walker NEVER EVER wins by a landslide; it's always by juuuust over half the votes. There have always been red counties of more affluent and conservative voters, and some that are true blue, either liberal, such as Dane County, home of the state capital or the heavily industrialized such as Rock & Milwaukee counties.

One thing non Wisconsin residents just don't realize is that Walker has never united the voters. I've never seen anyone cause such division within the state. I've seen people fill their yard with signs for "the other guy" or either recall or we stand with Walker signs just to spite the next door neighbor's single sign in the yard. Don't forget the protestors in the Capitol building. They weren't chanting and banging drums to show their support for Walker.

a reply to: nwtrucker


REPORT: KOCH BROTHERS SUPPORT SCOTT WALKER FOR PRESIDENT

www.breitbart.com...

On Monday, David Koch reportedly told donors at a Manhattan fundraiser for the New York State Republican Party that he and his brother Charles believe Walker gives Republicans the best chance to take back the White House, according to a New York Times report.

“We will support whoever the candidate is,” David Koch reportedly said. “But it should be Scott Walker.”

According to the Times, while David Koch suggested that the numerous organizations the Koch brothers oversee “would not intervene in the Republican primary process on behalf of a single candidate,” he reportedly “indicated that the Koch family might personally offer financial support” to Walker.

Nope

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok

Of course there's crap on both sides. SO WHAT?

If we can't get rid of it, at least pick the crap that fertilizes the best....

Maybe but the republicans are not offering anything that I see will win.

Important issues in the USA I can see is:

Economy, its stagnated and stalled and teetering on a knife edge. Good jobs are scarce. This concerns me too as if the USA goes tits up it wipes off all the gains the UK has.

Illegal Immigration.

War, Most american I have meet are SICK of war. They dont want another Iraq or Afghanistan, IE a war of Offense. Bombing ISIS is fine but a full blown war in Iran the people DONT want unless they attack the US or a Ally.

Poor healthcare. It was # before Obama care and now its even worse!

Racial tensions. Enough said

Over the top and oppressive policing coupled with the high crime.

Ineffectual and bureaucratic federal government.

Ridiculous war on drugs and stupidly high incarceration rate as a result.

Government corruption and lobbying.

The high deficit.

I don't disagree with any of your observations. You've hit the nail on the head.

a reply to: Willtell

Thanks for the info!

The rest of my post on the "billionaire's club" still applies far, far more of them in the democrat camp than the Republican...

a reply to: nwtrucker

I take Walker as a serious enough contender for the GOP nomination, but I fail to see his chances of winning against Hillary. As the other posters have identified here, he has 0 appeal to voters outside that of the immediate right. Heck he even loses a large chunk of the Libertarian wing in his own party, you think Rand's supporters are transferable? It didn't help his recent 'views' on attacking Iran as of late.

The only advantage if any that Walker will bring against Hillary is that he can win Wisconsin a blue state. Now that will help given the monumental task set out for the republicans to win enough electoral college points, but Wisconsin is small fish. It's not enough. You really haven't identified what exactly his appear will be outside of those on the right.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

He has turned Wisconsin into a red state, also, I saw some polls, I think just today on Fox where multiple Republicans are ahead of Hillary, including Walker, in several swing states.

I didn't delve into them any further than the titles of them however.

I had suggested a strategy a few months ago where Walker could force backing by the GOP Establishment. He could go "listen gents, I intend to run for President whether or not I receive the Republican nomination". (AKA the Perot gambit.)

He could easily draw off enough votes as an 'independent' to ensure a Democrat victory. That might force the Establishment to support him based on him or Hillary, take your pick....might work, might not.

The trouble is Trump. That loose cannon might beat him to it and seeing his tactics so far, I bet he's the one more likely to make that move..Result? SNAFU....LMAO

a reply to: Cheddarhead

Thanks for the clarification. I really didn't intend on implying that Walker unified voters. Perhaps unified some of them, enough to win.

I'm am not in the least desirous of unification of the voters/public. It would take an outside invasion/disaster to achieve that. I want, one, to win, two, have someone in power that isn't same old, same old and changes some things economically.

Bringing the public sector unions in line is high on my list. However, I haven't seen much of any further steps he'd take economically. I look forward to that information.

In the meantime, I like the guys spunk and grit. He has my support....for now.

Why would any sane person vote for a man who's biggest accomplishments were lowering pay and benefits of working people? Democrats and especially Republicans have been in the pockets of the wealthy elites and have done everything possible to ensure the people that actually do the work in this Nation take home a smaller slice of the pie. Life is hard. No one cares or gives a damn about you or your family. You have to take what you can, when you can ,because if you rely on others to give you "goodwill" you and your family will get screwed. Your employer desires to pay you the absolute minimum that he can get away with...THAT is why UNIONS are so important to working people. Union employees earn, on average, 30% more than non union workers doing the exact same work. The next time a Republican tries to get you to work for LESS, tell him to go to hell. Your family depends on YOU to earn as much as you possibly can in this dog eat dog world. The LAST thing working people need is less pay, less benefits and some asswipe politician trying to take money out of your families mouths. If you aren't unionized then it's your nonsense that it causing you to lose out. Don't be jealous of those that are unionized...for they are just smarter.

a reply to: KeithCooper

Fine, if it's a corporation paying those wages.

What you leave out is the public sector unions are paid be ME. When I get less than them, wages and benefits, you expect me to 'not be jealous'?

Jealousy has nothing to do with it. I can't afford you. Period. It's called cutting expenses...deal with it.