• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker survives recall effort, NBC News projects

. . .and for the 1456987th time, turtledude has just finished quoting his Messiah rush limbaugh.

Difficult to say what's more pathetic--the fact that right wingers are actually stupid enough to believe that any money not dumped into union pockets will actually be returned to the people in the form of lower taxes, as opposed to subsidies for specific individuals. . .



or the fact that they think romney will give them a job :rolleyes: :lol:

What last night showed is that the people support what Walker is doing and that results actually matter. That doesn't bode well for November for Obama because Obama cannot run on his record. Unions wasted millions and millions of dollars to lose in a landslide. That message will resonate all over the nation. Watch Obama poll numbers now.
 
Scott Walker received reportedly 70% of his funding from out of state thus denying the voter of Wisconsin the right to determine their own governor. The practice is wrong no matter who does it or who benefits. Wrong is wrong.
 
What last night showed is that the people support what Walker is doing and that results actually matter. That doesn't bode well for November for Obama because Obama cannot run on his record. Unions wasted millions and millions of dollars to lose in a landslide. That message will resonate all over the nation. Watch Obama poll numbers now.

Not wise to count chickens...but if voters are going to ask themselves "Who's more likely to help me get back to work?" three+ years in office suggest that the answer won't be President Obama.
 
This election shows the "conservatives" just how much money they need to spend to win these elections.

Er…uh actually...The Conservatives showed the Democrats ‘just how much money they need to spend to win these elections.’ Good luck with that next time…
 
Not wise to count chickens...but if voters are going to ask themselves "Who's more likely to help me get back to work?" three+ years in office suggest that the answer won't be President Obama.

It won't be Romney either. Corpgov is not the answer to disaster capitalism caused by corpov. Big money owns both candidates.
 
Scott Walker received reportedly 70% of his funding from out of state thus denying the voter of Wisconsin the right to determine their own governor. The practice is wrong no matter who does it or who benefits. Wrong is wrong.

They weren't denied anything. They were the ones who actually got to vote. Honestly, Risky, it seems like some of you would rather manufacture some other reason why Walker won instead of accepting or looking at the real reasons he did.
 
Scott Walker received reportedly 70% of his funding from out of state thus denying the voter of Wisconsin the right to determine their own governor. The practice is wrong no matter who does it or who benefits. Wrong is wrong.

Oh, Good Lord,, you think funding was more important than people voting their own pocket books? Results matter and Walker has generated some good results which is what matters. Wherever Walker got his money is irrelevant because people are always going to vote their pocket books.
 
Not wise to count chickens...but if voters are going to ask themselves "Who's more likely to help me get back to work?" three+ years in office suggest that the answer won't be President Obama.

Don't read too much into it. The way you guys are talking, you think it's a slam dunk for Romney to win Wisconsin. Considering the power shift in the Senate, don't.

I support Romney personally, but he's still gonna have to work for it. He shouldn't start measuring the drapes in the White House yet.
 
Scott Walker received reportedly 70% of his funding from out of state thus denying the voter of Wisconsin the right to determine their own governor. The practice is wrong no matter who does it or who benefits. Wrong is wrong.

Most the money for both sides was from out of state as most the union money was not raised from members in Wisconsin.
 
Don't read too much into it. The way you guys are talking, you think it's a slam dunk for Romney to win Wisconsin. Considering the power shift in the Senate, don't.

I support Romney personally, but he's still gonna have to work for it. He shouldn't start measuring the drapes in the White House yet.

I'm really not "you guys, " and I just said, "Don't count your chickens..." My other point was that Obama can't run on his record, and I don't think he can.
 
Democrats have been very shy of the concept of voting on economic positions of late. Hence, the war on everything except white males.
 
Recall elections are fairly unique and some people oppose the overall concept of using a recall election simply for disagreeing with policy actions. Otherwise there would be perpetually recall elections nearly all public officials by the opposing party.

I wouldn't read much into the outcome one way or the other as this was not a typical election.
 
X and Conservative, are you both saying that money doesn't factor into elections? Next you all are going to tell me that AIPAC has only piddling influence on the Hill.

If money from out of state doesn't mean squat, why was so much out of state money sent to the Walker campaign?
 
Scott Walker received reportedly 70% of his funding from out of state thus denying the voter of Wisconsin the right to determine their own governor. The practice is wrong no matter who does it or who benefits. Wrong is wrong.

If those people providing the 70% of funding voted then you might have a point.If those ads were votes you might have a point. However, providing political ads is not denying anyone the right to determine their own governor.
 
I'm really not "you guys, " and I just said, "Don't count your chickens..." My other point was that Obama can't run on his record, and I don't think he can.

He can't. You'll notice that he hasn't been. Why do you think he's trotting out Bill Clinton?

But this thread....well there's been so many money shots in this Con circle jerk that it's a wonder they're not spent.
 
Oh, Good Lord,, you think funding was more important than people voting their own pocket books? Results matter and Walker has generated some good results which is what matters. Wherever Walker got his money is irrelevant because people are always going to vote their pocket books.

Coincidence! I always picture you carrying a pocket book.
 
X and Conservative, are you both saying that money doesn't factor into elections? Next you all are going to tell me that AIPAC has only piddling influence on the Hill.

If money from out of state doesn't mean squat, why was so much out of state money sent to the Walker campaign?

Millions of dollars were spent to create the recall and what do you have to show for those results? The win was bigger last night than the original election. People will always vote their pocket books and that is what matters. Walker's results show great improvement in the state and that is what led to the overwhelming results last night.
 
Reading Democratic Underground after Scotts victory is funny. They are completely pissed. I guess many of them are overpaid public sector employees who will see their wages cut.

****. - Democratic Underground
Warning, foul language.

Thanks for the link. "Conservanazis"? What a buncha whiney-babies. Some even resurrected the 2000 election. I'd say "unbelievably" if it weren't so believable as the "song that never ends." Never mind that it's 2012.
 
Scott Walker received reportedly 70% of his funding from out of state thus denying the voter of Wisconsin the right to determine their own governor. The practice is wrong no matter who does it or who benefits. Wrong is wrong.


How much did Barrett recieve?
 
They weren't denied anything. They were the ones who actually got to vote. Honestly, Risky, it seems like some of you would rather manufacture some other reason why Walker won instead of accepting or looking at the real reasons he did.

Libs complained about outside funding when Californians voted to ban gay marriage for the 2nd or 3rd time. I wonder if libs will do the same thing and put these scott walker contributors on some **** list like they did with the proponents of traditional marriage.
 
X and Conservative, are you both saying that money doesn't factor into elections? Next you all are going to tell me that AIPAC has only piddling influence on the Hill.

If money from out of state doesn't mean squat, why was so much out of state money sent to the Walker campaign?

Well, as Joko pointed out, it wasn't just Walker who received out of state funds. Could it be, at all possible, that the people who voted in this election actually knew who they wanted to vote for and why? Is it really so hard to accept that maybe unions are just not the sacred cows you might like them to be?
 
If those people providing the 70% of funding voted then you might have a point.If those ads were votes you might have a point. However, providing political ads is not denying anyone the right to determine their own governor.

Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining, James. If political ads aren't effective, why is sooooooo much money spent on advertising and campaigning?
 
How much did Barrett recieve?

Wonder what liberals are going to say using the money argument in supporting Obama this fall. His goal of raising a billion dollars is quite telling. Is Obama trying to buy the election like liberals claim Walker did in Wisconsin?
 
Libs complained about outside funding when Californians voted to ban gay marriage for the 2nd or 3rd time. I wonder if libs will do the same thing and put these scott walker contributors on some **** list like they did with the proponents of traditional marriage.

Cons went on and on about outside Union money going into referendums in other states. As always, it seems like it's only a problem when the other side does it.
 
Wonder what liberals are going to say using the money argument in supporting Obama this fall. His goal of raising a billion dollars is quite telling. Is Obama trying to buy the election like liberals claim Walker did in Wisconsin?

If he wins, you'll be the first one shouting about the money.
 
Back
Top Bottom