Posted on 04/10/2015 3:43:26 PM PDT by entropy12
Walker 15 Bush 12 Carson 11 Cruz 10 Huckabee 10 Paul 9 Rubio 8 Christie 4 Perry 3 Santorum 2 Jindal 2 Kasich 1
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
No, Reagan was never a pro-amnesty candidate.
Who is it that you are trying to defend with this campaign anyway, Walker?
“If so, you voted for a Pro-Amnesty candidate!”
Was he pro-amnesty before running?
No, he was not.
He signed the amnesty bill because the Deems promised border security, making it the last amnesty ever. He said it was a mistake later as well.
Walker has been pro-amnesty for some time now, except of course, not after he decided to run for president.
Very disingenuous.
But you missed the entire point of what I said - I’ve lived with the effects of unchecked illegal immigration and the invasion of 2 states (Texas and California). That ruin of border states wasn’t obvious 30 years ago, it was just ramping up. Now it is to the point of destroying our country and culture. There will be no more chances to undo the devastation.
“HH, I apologize. I new that little factoid would rankle garments, yet I posted it anyway . . .”
Twice, in fact.
And with such giddiness you didn’t stop to spellcheck.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
In trying to figure out why you were going on so about Reagan, I figured out that I needed to look at modern day Scott Walker.
I found this.
WALLACE: But you said you supported it.
WALKER: And my view has changed. I’m flat out saying it. Candidates can say that; sometimes they don’t.
WALLACE: So you changed from 2013?
WALKER: Absolutely.
“I don’t know what you are going on about, or why.”
Making excuses for Walker being pro-amnesty, I guess. This tired ‘argument’ comes out every time the GOPe runs a pro-amnesty candidate. Apparently it’s all they got.
I completely agree, except, even if he “takes a stand against amnesty” it’s too late. His position of first build the wall and then we can talk about it, is akin to...after we pass the Obamacare we can see what’s in it. I see Walker as a weasel talker on this subject. I flat don’t trust him.
Walker can no longer get my vote...for me, it’s Cruz or Lose.
Feel free to add to my enlightenment . . .
“Can we at least wait until the 1st debate is over before casting our preference in concrete?”
Not when this is the first time in decades we have a candidate that is truly conservative, able to articulate his views clearly and with a passion and optimism for this country, without coming across as condescending, and has been a thorn in the side of the liberal Republican establishment- unapologetically so - and hasn’t been swayed by DC politics and the pressure to ‘compromise’ - ie, become more liberal.
I only know of one Cruz supporter who won't vote for Walker if he wins. It's also hard not to notice the anti-Cruz animus on the Walker threads. Both sides should stop that nonsense, these are our two best candidates.
I think there are an equal amount of Walker and Cruz supporters who do not like or trust Rubio. For good reason.
In post 124 you see him admitting that he was pro-amnesty in 2013.
I support Cruz, but I would vote for Walker, and maybe even Rubio.
But Jeb, there’s no way.
It would take a lot to convince me to support Rubio, he might need a few election cycles to get and keep himself on the conservative track. It's a shame what he did, he would have been a great candidate.
Do you have a link to this interview? I’d like to read it.
He’s flip-flopped several times, but supported the 2013 senate amnesty bill before he was against it.
You can try to play semantics and tell me that a ‘pathway to citizenship ‘ is not amnesty. Even McCain and Rubio say they are not for amnesty, laughably. But i’ll not respond to any such posts - arguing liberalism is a waste of time.
This is pretty ugly.
“The Wall Street Journal’s Reid Epstein is up with a report that, if true — and it is well sourced — will prove very troubling for Scott Walker on the campaign trail. Epstein writes that Walker “told a private dinner of New Hampshire Republicans this month that he backed the idea of allowing undocumented immigrants to stay in the country and to eventually become eligible for citizenship.” That conflicts with statements the governor made as recently as three weeks ago that, in a reversal of his previously held position, he no longer supports comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship.”
“Walker signed resolutions as Milwaukee County executive in 2001 and again in 2006 in support of comprehensive immigration reform, but said the Obama presidency and, in particular, the president’s lawlessness, had changed his view. That shift followed reporting, including here at National Review, on the Milwaukee County resolutions, which was at the time hotly contested by the Walker campaign, which said that the governor’s support for a path to citizenship was distinct from any support for amnesty. Epstein says three separate sources present at a dinner in New Hampshire, where Walker allegedly made the remarks, confirmed his account. They also said Walker mocked Mitt Romney’s statement during the 2012 campaign that illegal immigrants should “self-deport.”
‘Do you have a link to this interview? I’d like to read it.’
You are wasting our time demanding ‘facts’ you can very easily find yourself. I sent you one link of hundreds by searching ‘Scott Walker amnesty’.
You’re right.
“They also said Walker mocked Mitt Romney’s statement during the 2012 campaign that illegal immigrants should “self-deport.”
So Walker is touting the liberal stance - that we can’t get rid of them, so we have to legalize them.
Actually self-deportation has proven to work well. When Oklahoma passed a strong anti-illegal bill - one that has never been overturned in courts- the illegals scurried into surrounding states rapidly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.