Quote from: keyboarder on January 08, 2015, 11:10:02 AM
I like him too but I'm not wanting a re-creation of Dallas in Wisconsin.  He's already proven that he can make a target outta' himself.  The left hates him just that bad, sad to say.

One of the reasons I like him. The left is scared to death of him. Watch for the attacks by the MSM to begin shortly. I hope the unions come out vocally against him as well as that will only benefit Walker.

Does anyone know what Walker's stance is on 'amnesty'?

From what I've been able to find out, it appears that he wants to make it 'easier' to become a U.S. citizen,......whatever THAT's supposed to mean.

Quote from: MACMan on January 08, 2015, 01:06:14 PM
Does anyone know what Walker's stance is on 'amnesty'?

From what I've been able to find out, it appears that he wants to make it 'easier' to become a U.S. citizen,......whatever THAT's supposed to mean.

He has stayed away from those type issues as governor of WI. We will see eventually.

Quote from: supsalemgr on January 08, 2015, 02:00:00 PM
He has stayed away from those type issues as governor of WI. We will see eventually.

I guess his open border problem is not as severe as Rick Perry's is down here.

Quote from: MACMan on January 08, 2015, 01:06:14 PM
Does anyone know what Walker's stance is on 'amnesty'?

From what I've been able to find out, it appears that he wants to make it 'easier' to become a U.S. citizen,......whatever THAT's supposed to mean.

If it means; easier to apply, stand in line and enter the US legally..I'm ok with that!

Quote from: Solar on January 08, 2015, 04:59:54 AM
How would this effect Cruz, and does anyone see a teaming up between the two?
Personally, my dream ticket would be a Cruz/West ticket.

Cruz and West would be a damn good ticket, the more I think about it.  If Walker's the eventual nominee he'll probably go the obscure route, choosing some solidly conservative Congressperson that's not on anybody's radar. 

One side note, and it may be an issue...  The nomination will occur way early.  Either June 27-30, or July 18-21...   It can either be a good thing or more teeter-tottery.

Quote from: kit saginaw on January 08, 2015, 03:08:06 PM
Cruz and West would be a damn good ticket, the more I think about it.  If Walker's the eventual nominee he'll probably go the obscure route, choosing some solidly conservative Congressperson that's not on anybody's radar. 

One side note, and it may be an issue...  The nomination will occur way early.  Either June 27-30, or July 18-21...   It can either be a good thing or more teeter-tottery.

Yeah, by the time they got around to us here in Ca, it was already over.

Quote from: Solar on January 08, 2015, 04:59:54 AM
How would this effect Cruz, and does anyone see a teaming up between the two?
Personally, my dream ticket would be a Cruz/West ticket.

I like Walker - a lot!

I'm not so crazy about Walker and Cruz as a ticket. We need Cruz in the Senate - there is definitely a leadership deficit there and we need all of the strong leadership types we can get in the Senate.

Call me crazy, but I like a Walker/Palin ticket!

Both are or have been governors with proven leadership ability. And both are not the least bit intimidated by the MSM or the Democrat attack machine.

We could do worse - a lot worse!

Another rino I won't vote for....Walker voiced support for Holder's sneak attack on the US Criminal justice system over bypassing the grand jury in favor of an ombudsman.

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on January 08, 2015, 05:11:24 PM
Another rino I won't vote for....Walker voiced support for Holder's sneak attack on the US Criminal justice system over bypassing the grand jury in favor of an ombudsman.

Can you link that? This could be devastating to his chances.

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on January 08, 2015, 05:11:24 PM
Another rino I won't vote for....Walker voiced support for Holder's sneak attack on the US Criminal justice system over bypassing the grand jury in favor of an ombudsman.

Um, what grand jury? What ombudsman? What sneak attack?

Quote from: Solar on January 08, 2015, 06:36:00 PM
Can you link that? This could be devastating to his chances.

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/gov-scott-walker-expected-to-sign-police-custody-bill-b99253819z1-256342301.html


This is precisely the steps Holder needs to help establish his Ombudsmans override to local Grand Juries....OUTSIDE investigation means the feds.

This was done in April of last year and was recently it is being touted by the Feds as a model for "reform" of the Grand Jury system Re Furgueson and New York

The second article re-inforces that

http://guardianlv.com/2014/12/grand-jury-reform-necessary-to-regulate-law-enforcement/

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on January 09, 2015, 06:47:54 PM

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/gov-scott-walker-expected-to-sign-police-custody-bill-b99253819z1-256342301.html


This is precisely the steps Holder needs to help establish his Ombudsmans override to local Grand Juries....OUTSIDE investigation means the feds.

This was done in April of last year and was recently it is being touted by the Feds as a model for "reform" of the Grand Jury system Re Furgueson and New York

The second article re-inforces that

http://guardianlv.com/2014/12/grand-jury-reform-necessary-to-regulate-law-enforcement/

QuoteThe new law mandates that at least two investigators from independent agencies outside the department must conduct reviews into such deaths and publish public reports if criminal charges are not filed
Read more at http://guardianlv.com/2014/12/grand-jury-reform-necessary-to-regulate-law-enforcement/#cETvFA3ob0W6zZsS.99

This seems reasonable to me! I don't see where it is given power to the fed but maybe the county sheriff or the state police. Here in Duval County Florida it has been standing practice for the State Police to investigate where there may be a conflict of interest. It looks like Walker made it mandatory to have inter dept. investigation be it City, County or State But from the article I don't see were It involves the Fed's Unless they are requested in!

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on January 09, 2015, 06:47:54 PM

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/gov-scott-walker-expected-to-sign-police-custody-bill-b99253819z1-256342301.html


This is precisely the steps Holder needs to help establish his Ombudsmans override to local Grand Juries....OUTSIDE investigation means the feds.

This was done in April of last year and was recently it is being touted by the Feds as a model for "reform" of the Grand Jury system Re Furgueson and New York

The second article re-inforces that

http://guardianlv.com/2014/12/grand-jury-reform-necessary-to-regulate-law-enforcement/

I don't see how an outside investigation would usurp the powers of the DA in their use of a grand jury.
It would appear, that once the State investigation is complete, it is then turned over to the DA.

As to the NY article, those commies are full of shit in claiming Walker's Bill is in anyway the same, when they plan to take it to the next level and make it a Fed issue.
I could be wrong in reading it, but it doesn't appear to remove the grand jury, rather add a separate leg to the investigative process. As long as it stays State business, then I see no issue.
Did I read it correctly? I've had a long day and really need to hit the sack early, so I may have missed something.

Quote from: Solar on January 09, 2015, 07:32:51 PM
I don't see how an outside investigation would usurp the powers of the DA in their use of a grand jury.
It would appear, that once the State investigation is complete, it is then turned over to the DA.

As to the NY article, those commies are full of shit in claiming Walker's Bill is in anyway the same, when they plan to take it to the next level and make it a Fed issue.
I could be wrong in reading it, but it doesn't appear to remove the grand jury, rather add a separate leg to the investigative process. As long as it stays State business, then I see no issue.
Did I read it correctly? I've had a long day and really need to hit the sack early, so I may have missed something.

I read as you do. There is no mention of the feds and it is a state law so it stands to reason the additional investigation would be conducted by a state agency.