I think we need more data from Walker to judge but I do not discount your suspicions because we have had our hearts broken by so many others.
Posted on 04/20/2015 10:49:55 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Exactly. Walker is just another GOPe Shape Shifter.
Ted Kennedy changed the kind of immigrants this country was comprised of since day one with his Immigration Reform Act. We started getting third world types with no idea what America was.
Likely is about like throwing grenades hoping you hit something. It is far to early to get hooked on one person .
“It’s far too early to get hooked on one person.”
Tell that to the Mitt Walker pimps.
I prefer Cruz, but as to Walker DOING stuff, it's hard not to admire what he DID (accomplished) in the blue state of Wisconsin.
I think you ought to do some research before complaining about him like so many do here.
I find his positions more than acceptable.
Actually it was JFK whose dream it was to destroy us through immigration.
After his death, his brother carried it into law, it was probably a dream shared by the entire Kennedy family, including Joe the father.
The is a reason that the Kennedys are Catholic royalty.
Still nothing. Never an example of what he did
He did one thing as far as anyone knows that happens yo coincide with conservative values. Never an explanation why. Just a lot of orders to look it up and what’s wrong with you and who else is tgere
I had Rubio pegged as an all talk guy years ago. Can’t complain about him never expected anything from him
I spent a week last year in Singapore to find out why it is so amazingly prosperous in a few short decades after gaining independence from British colonial rule.
The prosperity is nothing short of amazing. Every 6th citizen of Singapore is a millionaire. Every major corporation does business in Singapore or has a branch office there. Their hospitals, underground highways, International airport, Ocean cruise terminal make ours in US look like third world.
Why so much prosperity in such a short time? First, they eliminated all welfare to able bodied citizens in working age range. There is no unemployment checks, no food stamps. If you do not work, you do not eat. The result is Singapore has 40% more jobs than there are citizens to fill them.
Their immigration policy is 2 year work-visa’s. There are 2 million foreigners workers doing jobs citizens do not want. When work visa expires they must return home and re-apply. Businesses can not hire any non-citizens without work-visa.
So, in a country of 3.5 million citizens, there are 2 million foreigners working in Singapore. It is the safest large city I have ever visited. I could walk the streets in late evening.
The ethnic composition of Singapore is 40% Chinese, 30% Indian, 25% Arabs and 5% British. I did not see any strife between ethnics. The foreign workers are mostly from all over Asia. Trouble makers are promptly deported.
Unless the plan included a catapult it is not far right enough.
I think we need more data from Walker to judge but I do not discount your suspicions because we have had our hearts broken by so many others.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3281780/posts
“I thought that was a very responsible and commonsense approach,” Sessions told msnbc when asked about Walker’s comments. “It’s unthinkable we admit a million people a year lawfully and nobody’s even willing to discuss whether that’s the right number and if we have within it the right makeup of skills and education levels,” he added.
Concededly, most of the objections allegedly coming from the "establishment" come from John McCain who is pushing Graham for president and who in any case is an entirely unreliable source for anything.
If Walker has flip-flopped, and that is not entirely clear, will he stay flopped? If we can't have Cruz, can we accept Walker? I see no other better alternative, but we are not at this stage of resorting to alternatives for Cruz yet.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dgreenfield/scott-walker-may-have-figured-out-immigration-populism/
I guess jumping in from the side puts the actual point at an oblique, hard to hit angle.
The guy I posted to was pretty much saying that because Walker has been reorganizing his thought process on immigration (all in the right direction) he is not to be trusted.
I merely pointed out that Reagan, having started as a democrat, also changed his thought process (did not think it necessary to grab one by the hand to drag them to the point.
As always, good to see the "expert" chip firmly perched on the epaulet.
So I ask you what some changing from supporting the democrats in the 1930s and 1940s to supporting republicans in the 1950s and becoming a conservative icon before he even ran for his first office, has to do with a politician switching on his fundamental positions in 2015?
The Romney nuts use to try the Reagan thing, not realizing how bizarre it is to point out that someone was a democrat at a time before all the political changes since WWII, versus Romney who was a liberal AFTER all those battles and until he was ready to run for president in 2006, after the 1960s, Vietnam, LBJ, the great society, Roe v Wade, Carter, the Reagan Revolution, the Cold War, the abortion wars, he was voting against Reagan, voting democrat in 1992, and fund raising for Planned parenthood, Romney was passionately promoting abortion and radical homosexual politics when George W was running for reelection and Romney was almost 60..
You aren’t pointing out that Walker held some immigration views from distant eras past, Walker wasn’t even born until after the 1965 Immigration Act, and has been in elective politics since 1990 and running for office and holding office during decades of the intense immigration battles, yet here he is currently making switches in 2015 as a Governor and Presidential candidate.
What does this have to do with anything from the 1930s and 1940s?
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.