Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Was it Money that Won for Scott Walker?

Posted 2 years ago on June 8, 2012, 8:27 p.m. EST by secnoot (-14)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Was it the money that was responsible for Scott Walkers win?

Why did he have more money?

Why weren't opponents able to raise more money?

139 Comments

139 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Its always money. Money leads to TV commercials, and the more commercials, the more you control the minds of this brain dead population.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6e5qRUCI1I

Voting Is Dead

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

So, what would you propose as a solution to enable a candidate to get their message out?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Basic grassroots stuff. How much money does it take to do a speaking tour of a state for a month? Hotel and food and gas equals about $250 a day. Need some money for print materials, but everyone else could be/should be volunteers.

$7500 in touring expenses for a month. If a candidate cant raise that on $100 per person donations, then they dont have the qualities to do anything once in office anyways.

Putting these politicians out in front, in town squares, would be a good thing.

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

Nobody would go. Without TV and radio, there would be no message heard.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Then the masses get exactly what they deserve.

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

Perhaps it would be better for the candidate to make the message as widespread as possible.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

You cant do that without massive money, and with massive bribes...errr, campaign donations, you are creating a web that doesnt allow for freedom.

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

As long as they are required to disclose where their money comes from, we would have the information about who and why the candidate adopts or has his policy formation. More information is better for all of us and money = information the same way money = speech.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Not exactly.

If your boss decides to pick you out of the bunch, and give you a 10000% raise, you are going to pay that back somehow, someway.

[-] 1 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

Was it money that won it for Walker... Yes, that and all the conservative voter fraud that is committed in Wisconsin.

Why did he have more money ... Because the people that bought walker don't want to lose out on their investment and dropping a couple million to some one who has billions is like you or i dropping a couple pennies.

Why weren't the opponents able to raise more money... Because the people that support Barrett are mostly the people with very little money.

Our country is up for sale to the highest bidder. Until people realize this and realize it's the root of almost all other problems this country faces, nothing will ever change.

[-] 0 points by bears101 (-37) 2 years ago

i haven't heard of any voter fraud on either side. The voters have spoken and Walker won. The public sector Unions lost an election of their making, must be hard being in their post election situation

[-] 1 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

That's probably because it's so wide spread and common no one even cares anymore.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

So if one prospective candidate spends a significant amount more than another, that makes the results suspect? What about Obama outspending McCain 3 to 1? Was that unfair?

[-] 3 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

Actually yes it was.

If you want to live in a country where our politicians are sold to the highest bidder, fine. I don't.

[-] -2 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

Wouldn't the amount of cash a politician was able to raise be a form of free speech? A way for someone to support policies they believe in?

[-] 5 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

LMFAO. Then the rich would have more free speech and the poor would have no free speech. You have to be a special kinda moron (repub appointed supreme court justices) to believe that non sense.

[-] 2 points by EndTwoPartyTyranny (14) 2 years ago

"The word bipartisan means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out"--George Carlin

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Carlin was the best. RIP.

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

So how do you make your point of view known without spending any money?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

VOTE! Protest. Lets see the 1% get in the streets. LMFAO. "Pass the grey poupon, please". "more tax breaks for us" " less regulation". See how silly it would be. That would be fair! And across the street the 99% masses. Hows that? We agree? You happy with that? Or do you want us to do more for the wealthy.? Why? You ain't wealthy. Why you lookin out for them? Worry about your own class. Advocate for your own family! Not your bosses!

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

Your post does not answer my question.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

your question: So how do you make your point of view known without spending any money? Answer: Vote! Protest! ok? Get it? It's right there above. So I've had to repeat myself. Don't make me do that again. Do you have some problem with comprehension. It's ok. Just wanna know. Should I write slowly? Just kiddin'. ;)

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

I thought we were talking about a politician having to spend money to get their point of view across to the public. What are you talking about?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I'm talkin about the 99%. We were talkin about campaign contributions being free speech. That means voters who might contribute. for me that means the 99% Politicians will have to make an impression by working, passing laws that help the 99%. otherwise weekly debates during campaigns could work. Ads can be free to politicians during campaigns since the public does own the broadcast airways.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (22310) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Campaigning should be treated just like public broadcast messages - only they should be scheduled in prime time during the run up to elections - State and Federal. Aired on every channel at the same time so that they are the only thing being broadcast. And campaigning should be restricted to issues and how to take care of them - no more mud slinging - popularity contests. Issues and plans to take care of them.

People on the job during these broadcasts should be allowed to watch them at work.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Agreed.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (22310) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Thanks - I just added a line for those at work.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Is an army a form of free speech? The US uses military might to win victory for the policies our nation supports. Is there really that much difference when a candidate uses financial might to win victory for the policies he or she supports? Our elections should not be won by might makes right. Everyone should have a roughly equal amount of political power in this country. Campaign elections should be publicly financed and democratic, not spendomatic.

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

So, no one would be in charge?

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Not what I said.

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

"Everyone should have a roughly equal amount of political power in this country."

That is what you said. If everyone has equal power, no one would be in charge. I am not sure civilization would work without leaders.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Equal power in their voting voice to elect leaders by having publicly funded campaigns. "Was that not clear?" ~Scott Pilgrim

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

So, do we all get an election stipend to spend on promoting ourselves to office? What do you suggest the payment to run for office should be? Are we able to use our public funds to buy commercial time for a friend or relative? If we don't want to run for office, can we use the money to buy beer?

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

That... was epic.

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

Just asking. I am playing by your rules and I am just asking you for clarification.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

If you feel you must have clarification on whether it is better to have justice or injustice in the voting system, perhaps you should poll your conscience for an answer.

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

So, even you consider your idea unrealistic.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

No, I consider you putting words into my mouth distasteful.

[-] 0 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

Child pornography is a form of free speech yet it's banned because we know and understand the harm it does. The thing that makes the constitution great is that it can always be changed to fit the needs of the people. Our founding fathers knew that they didn't know every thing so they made sure we could fix their mistakes in the future.

Technically yes, money is a form of free speech but at what cost ?

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Technically no, money is not a form of free speech ............................. what is it then, when used in this way? BRIBERY plain and simple !! Speech is the faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words. ~ Not Money ~

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Thank You.

[-] -2 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

Pornography is not political speech. The first specifically protects the right to political speech.

[-] 3 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

The first specifically protects the right to (((all))) speech including hate, pornography , religion and political. We have learned over the years that some speech is inappropriate and harmful so that is typically banned. The same goes for the argument of money = speech. It's harmful to the nation to allow money to dictate or influence our national policy and elections... Just like child pornography is harmful to children.

You can not realistically defend money = speech unless you are a conservative or libertarian who is living in a fantasy world of ignorance.

[-] -2 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

Yes, I am defending money = speech, because it does. When I contribute money to a candidate, that equals my ability to get their message out to more people. It represents my ability to associate with who I choose. It represents my ability to promote the message of the political candidate of my choice. It represents my ability to address my grievance against the government to promote the candidate who's philosophy I agree with.

Please explain how pornography is political speech. Please explain how my donating money to the political candidate who most closely represents my political philosophy equates with filming the rape of a child or woman. In pornography, the rights and humanity of another person has been exploited and/or violated. My donation of cash to the candidate of my choice violates no ones rights or infringes on anyones freedoms.

[-] 2 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

It put's you at an unfair advantage over those who do not have the money to contribute to a campaign. Like i said before, trash like you want to live in a country where money gives you an advantage. I want to live in a country where the man with not one penny in his pocket has the same power, rights and privileges as the richest person in the country.

Every day more and more people are waking up to the reality of what your kind is doing. Every day more and more people are realizing that your kind will have to be eliminated one way or the other to save our country. One day the richest of your kind will leave you and the rest of your kind to pay the price for their greed.

You have a good day Sir.

[-] -2 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

Trash like me? I guess if your argument is hollow, and it is, your best strategy is to insult poster rather than counter the points introduced.

So, you really want the guy living under the bridge the same power and control over your life as the men who run Microsoft or Exxon?... Good luck with that.

[-] 2 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

Way to twist my words, Typical for your kind. I said i wanted the man with no money to have same rights, power and privileges. Not that i wanted him to have control over my life. You how ever are begging to have the elite few control every aspect of your life by supporting money in politics/ money = speech. By doing so you are saying that the rich few who can buy our politicians should control all of our lives and have more say and power then the average American citizen.

I hope Americans wake up before it's to late, your ignorance is what is destroying our country. I hope Americans realize that the total elimination of your kind is the only way to save this country, and world for that matter.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Obama did not outspend McCain 3 to 1. That is ridiculous! And I think much of the Pres contributions came from small populist donations.

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

McCain spent $227.7 million

Obama spent $740.6 million

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=anLDS9WWPQW8

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Please. I disagree. There were lotsa groups the republican news svc bloomberg left out. And What does it matter If one spent more? Money matters without a doubt. Of course that election was driven by the economic crash that right wing wackos created. Remember?

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

There were groups that spent money on Obama that they left out. Fact remains, Obama outspent McCain 3 to 1.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Blah. Blah. Blah. Repub policies crashed the world economy to enrich their 1% puppet masters, Repubs turned a huge federal surplus into the largest deficit in history. They gave the 1% trillions in tax cuts, and put trillions for 2 wars on national cr card. Thats why they lost! Remember?

[-] -1 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

It was Obama and the Democrats that gave the trillion dollar stimulus to the bankers.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Nope that was your boy Bush. It Was Pres Obama who got it back. Aaaaaahhhh! Ha Ha Ha. Sucka!

[-] -2 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

Don't be a tool....

Verdict's in: Obama's $1 Trillion Stimulus Is a Bust

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Verdict-Obama-Stimulus-Bust/2010/07/02/id/363707

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Stimulus was 780 bil a 3rd tax cuts for small business, a 3rd to help states keep public workers employed. (police, fire fighters, teachers, librarians sanitation) and extend unemployment. the rest for investment in job creating, alt energy. it was great, it worked we got 4.5 mil private sector jobs and kept lotsa state workers employed. Repubs killed any extension of state help and repub states have been firing workers. We've lost more than a million public workers cause repubs are trying to hurt the economyfor there own politival benefit. it is treasonous

[-] -1 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

You are living in a dream world. Spending more than you have always leads to destruction. The only way to get back to prosperity for the "99%" is to have the government reduce spending and lower the weight of taxes on the private sector. The more Obama spends, the closer we get to the destruction of our country (which is what he is trying to do).

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The problem is not spending. This Pres has increased spending a ta slower rate than any president in decades. The current annual deficit was created by Bush. he spent us into this crises by giving our money to the 1% and corps. and wasting it on 2 illegal wars! The problem is all the jobs Bush lost, and therefore all the consumer demand that went away. The answer is to employ (public sector for some but mainly reward onshoring, penalize offshoring of jobs) the middle class, cut the debt burden on the middle class, this will increase growth, consumer demand and deficits/debts will shrink away. Done! Simple! got it?

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

You are looking at the left wing policies that are causing the collapse of European economies. If we don't change our ways here, we will wind up like Europe.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Europe is in trouble because they responded to the right wing crash of the world economy with cuts & austerity (right wing policies) instead of stimulation (left wing) like us. We have slow recovery and growth, they have recession. We should have done twice as much stimulation and we and we would be doing even better. But your repubs sabotaged any more stimulation because they didn't want to have a recovery during a democratic presidency.

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

The Dems controlled both houses of congress the last two years of Bush presidency. That is when the shit really started to fall apart. The housing was crisis caused by lenient lending of the community reinvestment act given more teeth during the last couple years of the Clinton administration by Dodd and Frank enabled people not able to afford homes to buy them... Actually, required banks to lend to people who could not afford the home they were buying.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Bush and his 1% cronies have crashed the world economy your obfuscation and distractions will not change those facts. You are grasping at straws.! Repubs have always fought for less regs, and still do. Dems have always fought for more regs. That is at the center of this eco collapse. 30 yrs of repub eco policy/phylosophy created our problems. The mistakes dems have made was moving towards the right and caving in to repub policy. It is your right wing wackos at fault. OWS can resurrect the left and take back the govt/eco from right wing 1% tools. BAM!!!! suck on that you right wing wacko!

[-] -1 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

The world economy is crashing because of leftist policies.... Governments are trying to buy votes by spending more and more money. They want to take more, but there is resistance by the people who earn the money, so they borrow money. Now, we are all getting to the point where we cannot take any more and cannot borrow any more. Whoever you want to blame it on, the game is about to end. When it does, there will be cuts, whether you like it or not.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

cuts and austerity like Europe has tried in the last 3 years since the right wing crash of the economy? Hows that workin out. We're doing better than they are and only stimulated half as much as we should have.

[-] -1 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

I just can't wait 'til Bush is out and Obama gets into office! I don't really pay close attention to political things, how much longer will it be before Bush is out and Obama is in?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Of course Pres Obama is in but to deny that we are struggling with the Republican created worst financial collapse since the great depression simply is delusional. It minimizes the crimes of the previous administration. Certainly a republican like you likes to push that fallacy. But if we are to recover we cannot deny the reality of how we got here. In addition we must acknowledge that the repubs have resolved to prevent a recovery during a democratic presidency. They have sabotaged this countries recovery with obstruction and overuse of the filibuster. It is criminal what they have done to the economy under Bush and treasonous what they have done to sabotage the recovery. Got it?

[-] -2 points by shadzworth (-394) 2 years ago

"The problem is not spending."

Really????

Do you typically spend more money every month then you bring in?

And if you do how long will it be until your line of credit is pulled?

How long before you become insolvent and have no recourse but to default on your mortgage and declare bankruptcy?

Answer those simple questions if you can and then tell me:

"The problem is not spending."

PS. You can't print your own money so that's a good thing,otherwise I'm sure that would be your answer.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

well we CAN print our own money so the fundamental concepts you refer to are meaningless. In any event I didn't hear you republicans complain about spending when your republicans took the democratic surplus and turned into a trillion dollar deficit by giving trillions in wealthy tax cuts! no complainin then! Or when you wasted trillions on 2 illegal wars. The great Pres Obama would have done those wars a lot better, cheaper, and faster. No, spending has slowed to a tcrawl under this great Pres. Our current annual deficit is left over from your repub Bush. Remember? That problem is a lack of revenue. All the unemployed that your boy Bush created cuts into revenue! All the tax cuts for the wealthy cuts down on revenue!. The lack of economic growth from Bush's "great recession" has cut revenue. When your repubs stop sabotaging the recovery we will hire, and grow our way out of the Bush recession/deficits/debt hole. Got it? understand. no need to cut the programs that help the old and sick. No need to correct the republican disaster that helped the 1% on the backs of the 99%.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Ya know... if our currency was on the Gold Standard I would be right along side you cheering. But it hasn't been for 40 years now. New currency, new rules. So macroeconomically speaking YOU are the one trying play football with baseball rules and are wondering why things don't make sense.

Maybe you should look into how the currency really works, what the rules of our system are. Here are some simple to read explanations of how the system is designed to work. Please take the time to educate yourself:

http://www.istockanalyst.com/finance/story/5749331/who-s-afraid-of-the-big-bad-national-debt

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/05/playing-monopolis-monopoly-an-inquiry-into-why-we-are-making-ourselves-so-miserable.html

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

I do not believe them. There is no changing the laws of nature.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Money is a man made creation. There is nothing natural about it. There are no laws of nature governing how it works. We invent the rules for each system of currency.

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

Nothing has changed. It is a lie that you can spend more than you take in. That is the reason the Fed was invented, to trick people into believing they could live beyond their means.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

I guess you didn't read the articles or did and failed to understand them. The proofs are there in simplified form. The lie is that the rules for different currencies are the same.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

So was the Bush tax cuts, so is the accelerated military spending, so is the "drone's jobs program" ... so is &^%#$ . . . et al. The "tools" are the one's who think siding with one of the two major political parties will bring forth their messiah :)

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

Clearly no. That's not to say Citizens United won't be a factor in other elections. Baggerism is rampant in Wisconsin.

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

Was Bagger the guy that lost? Maybe Wisconsins' didn't agree with his political views.

[-] 3 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

No, that was Barrett. Baggers are people with no self-respect. Or brains.

[-] 2 points by justiceforzim (-17) 2 years ago

Baggers?? Would that be FLEA or Tea??

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

... Or maybe carpet baggers?

[-] 2 points by justiceforzim (-17) 2 years ago

Flea, carpet...same diff

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

There was an ad that ran that was very effective I believe. People were saying," I didn't vote for Scott Walker (2010). I don't support the recall. " At the end it said......vote scott walker........... They sort of snuck it in there at the last second. That's what a lot of people did too. Hopefully they show up in 2014 so we can get rid of this tool once and for all.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

It was citizens casting votes that won for Scott Walker.

To my knowledge nobody was paid to vote, That is against federal, state, and local laws.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Of course no one was paid to vote. but to suggest that money has no affect on voting patterns/turnout and therefore elections is naive at best, Dishonest at worse.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I don't believe that people are the naive. I am sure it affects some people however I believe most voted based on their wallets. They are happy that walker made public sector folks pay 12% of their benefits because they are paying 28% on average.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

They are paying 28% because the private sector raised it from the 12% (and lower) they used to pay. WE used to pay. I used to pay. The real solution is to get the private sector to put people ahead of profits and stop squeezing the middle class with higher benefit costs and lower pay. Not to get the union workers to pay more. It is criminal that anyone has to pay as much as 28%.We should fight to lower the costs for all workers. Rather than fighting to hurt American workers at a time of great hardship for all workers. You got it backwards. We should use our energy to help workers not hurt a few workers.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Republicans outspent democrats nearly 7 to 1 in Wisconsin. Here's an idea, hold recall elections against incumbent republicans in every state that allows recall elections, and drain the bank accounts of the 1% :)

After that ... the 99% can boycott the corporate media (and the corporations that own them), and force them to spend all that money they earned from political advertising, to survive. A political war of attrition. The good news is, the 99% know how to survive with very little, so you'd think the 1% will have to cry uncle eventually.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

When the 99 percent come to understand that what they see and hear and read in the media is designed to hoodwink them and worse we will be on the way to a new and better world.

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

Why just Republicans? What about Obama? He outspent McCain 3 to 1. Should that election be challenged over and over?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Right, it's a sad state of affairs, this mess we've gotten ourselves into. But you're sitting here making political comparisons, as if we're obligated to take special attention to always insulting politicians equally (in other words, I must follow up every negative remark about Romney, with a negative remark about Obama), but really, it shows you have at least some sentiment for republicans (and the mannerism of your dialog fits the partisan archetype very well).

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

Fair enough. I disagree, but I respect you for being consistent.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Who knows, and who cares.

Bottom line is the money in politics is screwing teh whole thing up.

[-] -2 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

How did money screw it up?

[-] -1 points by camams (7) 2 years ago

It was the taxpayers that made Gov Walker. It was the taxpayers that are fed up with getting boned by the union boss. America has woken up to the corrupt public / Federal unions and now we will stamp them out

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

citizens not taxpayers

[-] 0 points by camams (7) 2 years ago

Taxpaying citizens

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

government should be for the people , of the people and by the people

[-] 0 points by FreeSarsak (4) 2 years ago

frogs don't have wings

[-] -1 points by commonsensefolks (-55) 2 years ago

Stop whining. Walker won because the views of Barrett and the left are not popular.

CONFISCATING union dues from workers involuntarily and throwing them towards a democrat didn't work out well. Who knew?

Scott Walker used the money of people who volunteered to support him. They had the choice to do it or not. Union workers having money taken from their paychecks for Barrett, not so much.

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

I think you may have picked the wrong moniker. If you will go back to my original post, you will see I was asking questions, not whining. Perhaps "I Will Read Into Your Post Anything I Want Folks" would be a more apt name.

[-] -1 points by shadzworth (-394) 2 years ago

Try 53% of the Union members voting for him just for a starter.

[-] -1 points by JonFromSLC (-107) from West Valley City, UT 2 years ago

Money is the excuse that every loser uses. Money doesn't persuade people to vote. Most of the people I talk to get annoyed by the constant barrage of political ads. I've never been driving down the street and seen 1 of a billion yard signs and thought "Hmm... there's a good looking sign that tells me absolutely nothing about the candidate, I'll vote for him!"

Money doesn't win elections. The people vote, and that's what causes one candidate to win or lose.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

To suggest that money has no affect on voting patterns/turnout and therefore elections is naive at best, Dishonest at worse.

[-] -1 points by JonFromSLC (-107) from West Valley City, UT 2 years ago

So you're saying you can be bought?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

That is twisting my words. Which is also not honest. No I cannot be bought but many people can be influenced by a barrage of ads. You disagree?

[-] 0 points by JonFromSLC (-107) from West Valley City, UT 2 years ago

If that kind of shit persuades people, in my opinion, they shouldn't be voting. But it's not a perfect world is it?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Why do you think corporations give billions of dollars a year to Madison Ave to influence peoples purchases of products, steer them to their own brand? Do you believe that advertising does not work and that corporations are acting stupidly in this respect, wasting stockholders money?

Or maybe that many studies have been performed by market research firms and psychology departments that show that indeed, advertisements influence a persons perception of brand recognition and associate product value with brand due to repeated media exposure?

[-] -1 points by camams (7) 2 years ago

It was not money that made Gov Walker win, it was American taxpayers that are sick of feeding the union boss. This is what made Walker win

[-] -1 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

walker won because the truth will out. union thugs , with all their attempts at fraud lost. union members voted for walker. walker has done a great job in wisconsin. wisconsin was in the red, walker brought back into the black, they now have a surplus.

[-] -1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

republiclans are the best investment money can buy

[-] -2 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

What about when money buys a Democrat?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

rare but not unheard of
kochs promised to buy $400,000,000 of republiclan
can you site any Democrat who has made a similar pledge?
with a link please - not to fox or heritage or larouche

[-] -1 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

George Soros.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

and your proof or documentation is ???

[-] -1 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

I doubt showing you would make any difference. I could post story after story and you would just tell me you hated the source. My bet would be that you already know what I have said was true, but you j ust want to be contradictory. Why are the Kochs bad, but Soros is okay? Or is it not okay? Soros bought Obama the Presidency, or at least did the best he could to do so. Okay, so now the Kochs are doing the same thing. But I think the thing that really bothers you is you want to try to make yourself and others believe that it was the Kochs who have done this but you know in your heart that is free minded intelligent people who have considered the facts and have decided to make their prescence known.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

so you don't have any proof - lies are so easy for some types . who signs your paycheck? david or charles

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

I rest my case. The truth is out there.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

the truth is in your straight jacket

[-] -1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

You asked if money played a part and it didn't. People made up their minds before they even ran ads. Walker was a sure thing.

[-] -2 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

So, the election turned out as it should have. More people agreed with the policies of Walker than with the political views of his opponent.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

More people agreed with the policies of Walker than with the political views of his opponent. This had little to do with views:
10% of voters believed recalls should NEVER be done 60% of voters believed recalls should only be done upon very severe malfeasance in office . FYI- the problem with Kleefisch is not jer name - its her brain.
I'll take a wild guess - within 6-12 months she'll be governor

[-] -2 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 2 years ago

Calling the voters stupid and weak willed by blaming the loss on money is a typical but losing leftist ploy. The meme for this epic loss is the money one, had the spread been 2-3% we would be talking about nothing except the voter fraud that had been taking place and how we were going to kick ass on the recount but 7 points is just too big to steal.

With leftists, it is never their policy that loses, it's always, fraud, racism, evil corporate money or stupid voters. It couldn't possible be that people are sick of allowing fat unions to feed off a country that is in trouble and can't afford the corruption anymore.

And yet, you people wander around mystified.

[+] -4 points by JS93 (-321) 2 years ago

"Election" Fraud, how W got elected, what Rick Scott is doing in FL to suppress the Vote. "Voter Fraud" is a Karl Rove RW myth.

Propaganda: It worked in Germany for the Nazis (who were elected). Today it's Big Biz!

[-] 0 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

you changed your screen name but you're still a braindead shill for the current administration. how do you explain reagans landslide over carter? in florida is about the fraud of illegals and the dead being able to vote, therefor voter ID. democrats scream racism when a state wants a voter to indentify themselves and back it up with a photo ID. what nerve!

[-] -1 points by JS93 (-321) 2 years ago

Go get a history lesson, I'm taking this teaching job that you idiots don't even appreciate and shoving it up your ignorant asses!

October Surprise! Contrived Oil Shortages! What Denial! What Ignorance!

[-] 0 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

go back to your playpen.

[-] -1 points by JS93 (-321) 2 years ago

Go back to the brain store.

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

In Florida, Bush v Gore, after a dozen count showing Bush had won, the only count that would have counted was the count that showed Gore winning... Like when Al Franken supporting officials kept counting again and again until they could stuff enough vote for their guy to win. You want to see election fraud, look at the Democrat strategy of ignoring counts that go against their man and manufacturing votes for the person they want to win.

[-] -1 points by JS93 (-321) 2 years ago

In 2001, a consortium of reputable news media organizations recounted all the the FL votes and found Gore the winner but didn't press it because of the 9-11 tragedy. At that time Shock Doctrine on American soil began in full force.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

You did not just say "reputable news media organizations" did you?

My God...the propaganda DOES work!

[-] -1 points by JS93 (-321) 2 years ago

You didn't just omit Shock Doctrine strategy at work did you? Or the reputable SCOTUS (exception) appointment of a POTUS did you?

Another great difference is, tables turned, Gore and us Dems would have demanded a re-election.

And Koch Bros bought a gov seat in WI!!

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

After months of ballot stuffing, reputable liberal news media organizations encourage the theory that votes should be counted over and over until the count can produce the outcome they desire. Dozens of counts showed Bush winning. One count shows Gore winning. I would tend to think the dozens of counts that show Bush winning than the one outlier count showing Gore the winner.

[-] -1 points by JS93 (-321) 2 years ago

OMG! That's like the Devil left dinosaur bones to fool us!

Prove me wrong ~ you can't cuz it's fact!

[-] -3 points by JS93 (-321) 2 years ago

Wednesday, June 6, 2012 A billionaire can buy anything he wants

In exit polling done Tuesday during the Wisconsin recall, 18% of those who voted for the hard-right Republican Walker said they will vote for Obama in the Fall. How can this be? It seems $60 million in a relatively small state can really get your lies (I mean message) across.

One of the most popular ads run by the Republicans pounded on the idea that it was wrong to recall a governor that hasn’t committed a crime. A bold ad, or a perhaps a Freudian slip as he’s likely to be indicted any day, especially since 12 of his closest aids are already cooling their heels in jail. The premise of this ad was accepted by 25% of registered Democrats, Republicans simply don’t care if he’s committed a crime.

His billionaire masters purchased him an image as a bold, brave Governor who took on the difficult issues and balanced a budget that was $3.5 billion in the hole. All without cutting any jobs, or raising taxes. He really inherited a $40 million surplus that he gave away to corporations on the first day. The rest was also a bunch of lies, jobs will be slashed and taxes will skyrocket. Billions in debt is being kicked down the road while paying interest. But he was able to sell it as day for night. Rural voters that really turned out for him are now convinced that the greedy teachers all make $75,000 a year. Only about a 250% exaggeration. Next winter their roads probably won't be plowed, normally a big problem in the Great White North, but global warming should take care of that, courtesy of the Koch Brothers.

Even people who should know better accepted this nonsense with 35% of union households voting for their own throats to be cut. In the next few weeks the disaster Walker has made will start to impact locally. He was only the third Governor in 230 years of the United States to face a re-call, he might be the fourth as well. Okay, jail is more likely. On that point, ironically the re-call gave him a huge gift. Not only was his indictment put off until this Friday (a well placed rumor), but he is now able to transfer millions of campaign money to his legal defense fund. He can also buy counsel for his already indicted co-conspirators making it harder to flip them to State’s evidence. The Democrats did pick up one recalled Senate seat to gain the majority, so Walker’s agenda will be pulled up short. Now he can blame them for the damage he has caused.

The rightwing media has become obsessed with the “feud” between Obama and Clinton. They take no notice that Big Dog Clinton is been pulled up tight on his chain by Obama. The media said that yesterday in an interview on CNBC Clinton called for an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, contrary to Obama policy.

Here is the quote they base this on, try to find the words “tax cuts”, “I don't have any problem with extending all of it now, including the current spending level,” Clinton said in his interview with Bartiromo. “They're still pretty low, the government spending levels. But I think they look high because there's a recession. So the taxes look lower than they really would be if we had two and a half, three percent growth. And the spending is higher than it would be if we had two and a half, three percent growth because there are so many people getting food stamps, so many people getting unemployment, so many people are Medicaid.”

If you actually read the whole thing, what he’s talking about is spending levels and doesn’t mention cutting taxes. A Clinton spokesman spelled it out as if there was any doubt, “…on extending the Bush tax cuts, as President Clinton has said many times before, he supported extending all of the cuts in 2010 as part of the budget agreement, but does not believe the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans should be extended again.”

We have the best “liberal” media that right-wing billionaire money can buy. www.prairie2.com

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Can you say :"Governor Kleefisch" ?

[+] -4 points by JS93 (-321) 2 years ago

Sounds like bad gefilte fish to me.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

she's similar to bachman & palin & odonnell
not kosher at all

[+] -4 points by JS93 (-321) 2 years ago

Have you seen this: The GOP Plot To Sabotage US Economy ~ Treachery if not Treason

Fri Jun 08, 2012 at 08:15 AM PDT Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan & Kevin McCarthy: Plot with Frank Luntz

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/08/1098434/-Eric-Cantor-Paul-Ryan-Kevin-McCarthy-Plot-To-Sabotage-US-Economy-with-Frank-Luntz

On January 20, 2009 Republican Leaders in Congress literally plotted to sabotage and undermine U.S. Economy during President Obama's Inauguration.

 In Robert Draper's book, "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives" Draper wrote that during a four hour, "invitation only" meeting with GOP Hate-Propaganda Minister, Frank Luntz, the below listed Senior GOP Law Writers literally plotted to sabotage, undermine and destroy America's Economy.

The Guest List:
Frank Luntz - GOP Minister of Propaganda
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA)
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA),
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX),
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX),
Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI)
Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA),
Sen. Jim DeMint (SC-R),
Sen. Jon Kyl (AZ-R),
Sen. Tom Coburn (OK-R),
Sen. John Ensign (NV-R) and
Sen. Bob Corker (TN-R).

Non-lawmakers present Newt Gingrich

During the four hour meeting:
 The senior GOP members plotted to bring Congress to a standstill regardless how much it would hurt the American Economy by pledging to obstruct and block President Obama on all legislation.
[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

you can make fun of her name ( very jr high of you) but she won , by a lot ,over her union backed opponent.

[-] -3 points by JS93 (-321) 2 years ago

A billionaire can buy anything he wants: www.prairie2.com