world

Walker becomes 15th Republican to join White House race

52 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2015 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

52 Comments
Login to comment

Enough already! Though I do like his labor union busting.

And it's crystal clear to see the mainstream press (liberal) constantly defame the GOP candidates as they enter the arena and miraculously do not when a Democrat enters. Not to mention the Hillay gold card with the press.

Private industry: competitive, market driven, efficient, and aggressive.

Labor Unions: status quo, no drive, inefficient, and passive.

Two polar opposites today. Scott Walker Union buster and Hillary Union promoting. Hillary, doesn't the Feds inneficiency tell you something. Jobs for life don't make productive employees

-14 ( +2 / -16 )

I just saw an interview with him. He is evasive and talks in circles. At least Trimp says it straight.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

"I’m in. I’m running for president because Americans deserve a leader who will fight and win for them,” he wrote.

Used so many times over the years that it sounds rather empty...

5 ( +5 / -0 )

@MarkG. Do you know when the first debate among the gop candidates is? I think in couple weeks, but I'm not sure. Thankx.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

15 ? It's getting ridiculous !

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It was ridiculous at one.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

The first debate is Aug 6th. I'm sure Walker is a good man who hits all the right points but he does speak "ordinary," at least in measured tones like most governors. He is going to have an uphill battle getting aggressive and getting known. Cruz is an exceptional politician so I don’t expect other candidates to meet that.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Walker is the prototypical conservative. Lots of talk about tax cuts which will increase revenue, then when the promised revenue doesn't arrive they start gutting things like education and playing budget tricks to kick the can down the road.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Cool. Thankx Lizz-

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

When this guy speaks, it is either too mumbly to understand or he starts whirling around trying to grasp onto a solid idea. On his first all family interview with ABC's David Muir, Walker lamely said he never for a minute intended to equate 100000 pro union protesters to ISIS. If that were true, why did he say it in the first place? Decades working in the bubble of small state politics must have warped Walker.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

how about we make it an even two dozen? volunteers?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Walker Runs! Runner Walks!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The selection has some really sharp and accomplished individuals in the mix. Hillary can't even come close. She will be cut to pieces in a debate. Yet she remains on top....go figure.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Walker is the prototypical conservative. Lots of talk about tax cuts which will increase revenue, then when the promised revenue doesn't arrive they start gutting things like education and playing budget tricks to kick the can down the road.

Well, we tried 6 years and not even finished yet of taxing the people to the top pinnacle and you think that's a way to increase productivity and growth? That will never happen.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

At a time of record corporate profits and an historical gap between management and worker pay, the obvious thing would be to strengthen worker rights. Let's hear it for Scott Walker! - That is exactly what they would have EXPECTED he would do! Instead, he further diluted already weak labor laws and has made great strides in turning Wisconsin's once-great public university system into a factory for churning out compliant workers.

The results are clear: Wisconsin lags behind the US and even neighboring states in job growth, is mired in scandals regarding missing funds, and is struggling with a persistent deficit caused by tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy.

The only good words for Scott Walker is that he is not the worst Republican governor. Certainly, Kansas' Brownback and Louisiana's Jindal are far more dismal. But he is yet young. Give him time to display the truly destructive results of Republican policies implemented! (Also, he will not survive the first debate, will not win reelection, and will entirely fade from history quite soon.)

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@MarkG

And it's crystal clear to see the mainstream press (liberal) constantly defame the GOP candidates as they enter the arena and miraculously do not when a Democrat enters.

If you think the mainstream press is liberal, you're probably watching too much Fox News. Look it the way the mainstream press marginalized Bernie Sanders (a true liberal) right out of the gate. They don't defame the Republicans. The Republicans do that themselves. The fact that they don't have a single electable candidate among them is their own fault. They spent the last 8 years opposing Obama, instead of actually legislating.

It really makes you wonder why the Koch brothers and friends don't just pay higher taxes instead of wasting a ton of money throwing it at these candidates that don't have a shot in hell.

As far as unions, while there's a chance for corruption like with all things, they also help maintain things like livable wages and reasonable working hours. Both things Scott Walker did away with in his home state of Wisconsin.

Hillary can't even come close. She will be cut to pieces in a debate.

You have to be kidding...

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Isn't Donald Trump now the GOP's No. candidate? hahaha... says a WHOLE lot about the party. Now Walker, who has literally done nothing, is joining in the circus. I can't wait for the 'debates'.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

We can look at it this way, we may be very well informed on the VP selections backround unless the nominee goes outside this ring. Remember the Vice President is only a heartbeat away. The he or she needs to be an acceptable running mate.

If Biden enters the race, and some speculate he will, it's a double edge sword for Hillary. Her distancing from Obama will hurt her or the nations need for change from Obama may help her. This will be interesting to see how it plays out. With the increase in popularity of Sanders the Biden won't matter to him.

Most important we have a black man and a two woman entering the debates in a couple weeks. And a historic number of candidates. Should be eye opening and very interesting to watch......let's all look, listen and learn instead of making closed minded statements suggesting a candidate is useless from their opposing party. The fact is any serious candidate is more informed than most of us no matter which party.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

"we have a black man and two women"

Does Ben Carson have a better record than Herman Cain? Why don't the Repubs promote someone with a clear track record in office to help voters judge the candidate? Having never-before-elected-for-anything candidates at a presidential debate boggles the mind.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"Scott Walker earned national attention for his protracted battle with labor unions"

Point for Walker!

"15? It's getting ridiculous"... "It was ridiculous at one"

Ridiculous is having Hillary Clinton as the inevitable Democratic nominee.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Union-busting seems pretty un-Christian to me. What else will his 'Faith' lead him to do ?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

just shows you that republicans are full of ego maniacs

0 ( +2 / -2 )

So the news is going to be full of this bloody election for the next year and a half? Please no, not again.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Well, we tried 6 years and not even finished yet of taxing the people to the top pinnacle and you think that's a way to increase productivity and growth? That will never happen.

Happened twice, Clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed. Obama raised taxes a couple of points on the 1% and the economy boomed. Republicans love to repeat the same old lies over and over again. Too bad there is something called reality that gets in their way. Eisenhower had taxes at 90% for top earners, the economy boomed as well. So make that three times. For republicans a hint, three is more than never. Unless it is on fox news.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Well, we tried 6 years and not even finished yet of taxing the people to the top pinnacle and you think that's a way to increase productivity and growth? That will never happen.

You don't have to raise taxes, but you certainly shouldn't make drastic budget cuts now based on some future promise that lowering taxes will raise revenue. Why not tie the cuts to actual revenue? Things like taking $250,000,000 from the University of Wisconsin to make up for a budget shortfall from bullshit projections is just people denying reality.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

'Eisenhower had taxes at 90% for top earners'

The rightists don't like that kind of historical perspective. If Obama so much as mentioned a fact like that, the right would go apeshit and barricade themselves in their houses readying their beloved firearms to resist the commie takeover.

90% tax on the top earners under a Republican administration in an era of crazed lunatics looking for reds under the beds and the Fox feces throwers call Obama a socialist....

0 ( +3 / -3 )

As far as unions, while there's a chance for corruption like with all things, they also help maintain things like livable wages and reasonable working hours. Both things Scott Walker did away with in his home state of Wisconsin.

It is legalized extortion when by law public sector employees must join a union as a condition of employment and pay union dues to keep their jobs which are funneled to political causes they may or may not agree with. Even the courts are starting to declare that unconstitutional. Although unions are good at creating exemptions for leaders and keeping jobs for the worst of the employees, people could be late multiple times a week, sleep on the job, etc. the union will fight for their jobs when they should have been let go. If they were so great for the average worker and this was an era before other labor and employment laws membership would be booming, voluntarily.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Lizz... Bob Dylan...'Sundown on the Union'...

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Anyone who thinks Hillary is qualified to lead America after her constant lying and the Benghazi cover up is delusional.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Isn't Donald Trump now the GOP's No. candidate? hahaha... says a WHOLE lot about the party. Now Walker, who has literally done nothing, is joining in the circus. I can't wait for the 'debates'.

I wouldn't go around the block laughing my heels off, the Dems have a committed Socialist, if anything that is embarrassing.

Happened twice, Clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed.

Because in order to do that, the Republican congress pushed Clinton to cut spending.

Obama raised taxes a couple of points on the 1% and the economy boomed.

To the naked eye yes, but if you factor in NOW that for the last 48 months 45 million people are now on food stamps, add to that the millions of baby boomers that are retiring every day and people taking themselves out of the workforce, college grades struggling to find work, so yes, the economy looks great from that perspective if you don't factor in those conditions.

Republicans love to repeat the same old lies over and over again.

You mean, the truth that Dems don't want to hear, so in their minds they call it a lie. Kind of like..."la, la, la..I'm NOT listening to what you are saying!"

Too bad there is something called reality that gets in their way.

Then why must Hillary lie so, so much, I really want to know.

Eisenhower had taxes at 90% for top earners, the economy boomed as well.

And Reagan had taxes at even lower at 28% and the economy boomed as well, so what is your point?

So make that three times. For republicans a hint, three is more than never. Unless it is on fox news.

I really don't understand what your obsession is with Fox. If anything, you should worry about the Obama cheerleading squad at msnbc and CNN.

90% tax on the top earners under a Republican administration in an era of crazed lunatics looking for reds under the beds and the Fox feces throwers call Obama a socialist....

Which he technically is...

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

You don't have to raise taxes, but...

Yes, you do.

You need to tax the billionaires, not so much for their money, but to take their money so they can't buy politicians.

You need to tax big corporations because, well, they don't pay taxes in the US. They offshore it in the Caymans, and the price of doing business in the US is pay your f*SK&ng taxes.

Finally, you need to tax the middle class, because you need the middle class buy into government programs. The middle class is where all the money is, and it is a fantasy to think we can build a proper social democratic programs -- y'know, medicade for all, child care for all -- without the middle class buy in.

Thems the facts. Young middle class Americans know this because they are graduating from school with piles of debst at high interest rates and no jobs. That is the future of the Democratic party, and you are either with us on that, or not.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

'90% tax on the top earners under a Republican administration in an era of crazed lunatics looking for reds under the beds and the Fox feces throwers call Obama a socialist....

Which he technically is...'

He's 'technically' a socialist? Please explain. Do you think 90% tax rates on the highest earners is socialistic? Do you think a president who imposed 90% tax rates on the highest earners was a socialist? A yes/no answer please.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Eisenhower had taxes at 90% for top earners, the economy boomed as well.

bass4funk: And Reagan had taxes at even lower at 28% and the economy boomed as well, so what is your point?

His point was pretty clear and simple. The problem is that you come here and hear things that aren't talked about in the GOP bubble, and generally speaking your reaction is to plug your ears and eyes and start swinging blindly. I don't think you will ever understand how your very specific role as attack dog for the GOP is something they designed and created, and when they send you out into the world it exposes the fact that you really don't have much of a grasp on any topic.

And when the GOP leaders see you do that, they give each other high 5s. You are the perfect robot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Walker, another genius...

Scott Walker makes a clown of himself: Foreign policy-challenged candidate disastrously flubs Iran http://www.salon.com/2015/07/14/scott_walker_makes_a_clown_of_himself_foreign_policy_challenged_candidate_disastrously_flubs_iran/

WALKER: As president, on my very first day going forward, I would pull back, I would terminate that bad deal with Iran completely on day one. I would then put in place crippling economic sanctions against Iran, and I’d convince our allies to do the same. This is not a country we should be doing business with.

...yup, next!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

He's 'technically' a socialist? Please explain. Do you think 90% tax rates on the highest earners is socialistic? Do you think a president who imposed 90% tax rates on the highest earners was a socialist? A yes/no answer please.

This is kind of ridiculous honestly. Taxes in the 50s and early '60's weren’t really high. Yes, the top marginal tax rate was 90%, but it applied to almost no one, it was essentially symbolic for various reasons..In reality the vast majority of top earners faced lower effective rates (30-40%) than they do today and tax burden today has shifted much more towards top earners compared to 60 or 70 years ago. Even in France how long did that 75% super millionaires tax last ? A year ?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Scott Walker makes a clown of himself: Foreign policy-challenged candidate disastrously flubs Iran

When asked a few months ago if he’d back out of the Iran deal even if our allies were not willing to put sanctions back in place, Walker was unequivocal: “Absolutely.” Now he’s saying he’d back out and impose “crippling sanctions,” and then he would get busy sweet-talking the allies he’d just completely betrayed to get on board with his plan.

Oh I've been going in circles on this one with conservatives. It just doesn't sink in. Ever.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

'Yes, the top marginal tax rate was 90%, but it applied to almost no one, it was essentially symbolic for various reasons..'

What were those reasons? I'm intrigued. I've heard the same line from other rightists but they start talking rubbish when pressed. Are you saying it's acceptable to have extremely high tax rates on top earners as long as they are able to avoid paying them? A bit of 'symbolism' to keep the masses happy is the way to go?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Scott Walker cuts $250 million from the nonprofit University of Wisconsin, then gives $250 million in taxpayer funds to the for-profit Milwaukee Bucks to build a new arena (because the Bucks threaten to leave the state if the state doesn't pay up). This is the conservative leadership Walker is promising for the whole country?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

It is legalized extortion when by law public sector employees must join a union as a condition of employment and pay union dues to keep their jobs which are funneled to political causes they may or may not agree with. Even the courts are starting to declare that unconstitutional.

Well sure, if we had strict labor laws that guaranteed livable wages and safe working conditions, we wouldn't need unions. But Republican politicians who are more concerned with the interests of their corporate donors (like Scott Walker) actively work against those too. Unions might have their problems, but how else are individual workers supposed to stand up to the combined forces of corporations and the law?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

He's 'technically' a socialist? Please explain.

Big on income redistribution, wants to punish small business and especially big business owners, hasn't changed the corporate tax rate, so yeah, pretty much.

Do you think 90% tax rates on the highest earners is socialistic?

Yes, I'm all for a FLAT tax.

Do you think a president who imposed 90% tax rates on the highest earners was a socialist? A yes/no answer please.

I do, doesn't matter if they are a Republican or Democrat. However, if we impose a fair 90% tax rate on everyone, I would support it.

His point was pretty clear and simple. The problem is that you come here and hear things that aren't talked about in the GOP bubble,

Like income redistribution and how to raise MORE taxes in a failed economy?

and generally speaking your reaction is to plug your ears and eyes and start swinging blindly. I don't think you will ever understand how your very specific role as attack dog for the GOP

Whoa!! Hold up! I'm not an attack dog for anyone, I just hate on liberal hypocrisies that for some strange reasons keeps eluding cerebral cortex.

is something they designed and created, and when they send you out into the world it exposes the fact that you really don't have much of a grasp on any topic.

When libs are faced with facts that is usually the typical answer I hear.

And when the GOP leaders see you do that, they give each other high 5s.

I don't need a high 5 from either parties and particularly from the Democratic party.

You are the perfect robot.

Says the group that sit in the Obama choir.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

'Technically' a socialist? Please explain.

Big on income redistribution, wants to punish small business and especially big business owners, hasn't changed the corporate tax rate, so yeah, pretty much.'

You agreed with me that he has oversaw more of all new wealth created being pumped upstairs and that the rich have benefitted while the rest have suffered. Is that the socialism and wealth redistribution you mean?

You are truly impossible to debate with. It's either glaringly contradictory statements or 'yes, but your mum is fatter'. Impossible.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

You agreed with me that he has oversaw more of all new wealth created being pumped upstairs and that the rich have benefitted while the rest have suffered. Is that the socialism and wealth redistribution you mean?

You tell me, with 45 million people on food stamps for 47 months.

You are truly impossible to debate with.

I feel the same about most libs as well.

It's either glaringly contradictory statements or 'yes, but your mum is fatter'. Impossible.

What was the saying, "if you can't take the heat......"

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I feel the same about most libs as well.

But I thought you were nonpartisan?

What was the saying, "if you can't take the heat......"

Nice rejoinder. Now you've convinced me that Obama truly is a socialist.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

But I thought you were nonpartisan?

I am, I just call out liberal hypocrisy more because libs pretend that they are above everyone else.

Nice rejoinder. Now you've convinced me that Obama truly is a socialist.

Glad you came around, there is hope.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

'You are truly impossible to debate with.

I feel the same about most libs as well'

A perfect example of what I was talking about. I pointed out how you constantly contradict yourself when calling Obama a socialist and your reply is partisan, evasive and straight from the grand intellectual tradition of 'yes, but your mum is fatter'.

Let's try again. You agree that the rich have done very well under Obama and the rest have suffered. I agree with you. Is this what socialists do in your eyes?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

No more politicians in the White House.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I pointed out how you constantly contradict yourself when calling Obama a socialist and your reply is partisan, evasive and straight from the grand intellectual tradition of 'yes, but your mum is fatter'.

Drinking the Kool aid a bit too much again? Look if you can't or don't want to believe I'm not a non-Partisan then don't. I've attacked enough Republican past and present, unlike you I don't care about party affiliations.

Let's try again.

Yes, let's!

You agree that the rich have done very well under Obama and the rest have suffered. I agree with you. Is this what socialists do in your eyes?

For people like me as much as I hate it, I did well, but for the people at the bottom that they are now more than ever having to depend on an expanding monster government to take care of them I say, yes to your question..

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Walker is technically a clown.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If Walker is a clown, Hillary is queen of jokes.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

'If Walker is a clown, Hillary is queen of jokes.'

Partisanship and 'yes, but your mum is fatter' level of debate. That was a technically Bass retort.

I'm still wondering who isn't a socialist.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

If Walker is a clown, Hillary is queen of jokes.

He is. So, I guess she is. Good one Bass.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Former governor who want to be President usually goofy on fofreign policied except Reagan. Walker is worse than Trump in campaign i'd bet

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites