Screen shot here:
Screen shot here:
wejo wrote:
There are tons of reasons people register for parties they generally don't vote for. When I lived in Flagstaff and Ithaca I was a registered Democrat because those places are super liberal and the Democratic primary in essence determined the office holder.
I don't get it, why would you register Democrat just because the place you are living is primarliy Democrat? What advantage does that give you?
This is a serious question as I have no clue about this kind of thing.
Enjoyed the interview, he seemed like a top bloke, is he really a lawyer?
I don't get it... wrote:
wejo wrote:There are tons of reasons people register for parties they generally don't vote for. When I lived in Flagstaff and Ithaca I was a registered Democrat because those places are super liberal and the Democratic primary in essence determined the office holder.
I don't get it, why would you register Democrat just because the place you are living is primarliy Democrat? What advantage does that give you?
This is a serious question as I have no clue about this kind of thing.
You are allowed to vote in the opposing party's primaries. If you were a republican who felt that Obama was a real threat to your party's chances at winning the last Presidential election, then registering as a democrat would have given you the opportunity to ensure that he never became the Democratic front-runner.
Does that help?
wejo wrote:
Anyone got a screen shot of it on the homepage of yahoo?
If you just go to
www.yahoo.comand scroll down to the "Politics" section it's right there.
Post of the thread so far. Except I would correct the real unemployment rate to 19%. It's amazing how easy people can be duped. Look behind the numbers the Dept of Labor and the WH/media cabal are reporting! (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444273704577635681206305056.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
Fair enough if he takes exception to Ryan exaggerating his race time. And one can express disappointment with some Republican policies. But to conflate Ryan's claim into his self-aggrandizing indictment of the character of Republicans is absurd and ridiculous.
What gives Mr. Walker some special insight into politics anyway? He is being disengenuous, even dissembling if he claims he is a registered Republican unless he registered for professional reasons, which would be dishonest on its face as well. Since he describes so-called ills from years ago one would think he would have changed his party affiliation by the time of the interview. Most of the big professional attorney organizations are liberal in nature anyway, such as the ACLU, National Lawyers Guild, and the American Trial Lawyers Association and its state affiliates, which annually rank among the highest political contributors to Democratic candidates and causes.
It's astonishing a man of his pedigree and apparent education would spout typical WH talking points. Not an original thought there.
wejo wrote:
Anyone got a screen shot of it on the homepage of yahoo?
Free LRC tshirt if you do.
As for the interview, Bill is entitled to his opinion and we're going to print it. It was a straight Q&A done via email.
It's news to me that, "the Republican Party's embrac(es) those people who hate the President because of his race/color."
I doubt a guy who almost calls the Republicans racists has voted Republican anytime recently no matter what party he's registered.
I don't I mean I know a fair number of republicans who have voted for republican candidates recently (even one who worked for a Republicans senator years ago) who are very disillusioned with the current state of the GOP.
I mean the GOP embraced Donald Trump and his birther nonsense. Heck Mitt even made a joke about it. The birther issue did have a race tone to it.
Kudos again wejo for hitting the bigtime. I saw it on Yahoo as well- kinda surreal to follow the Libya embassy killings with the Bill Walker/Paul Ryan story.
Agree totally with obee. The Republican Party is in absolute, 100% disarray and when they lose this election with the bumbling Romney at the helm, it will be real interesting to see what direction they go. If they continue to lurch further right, they will PERMANENTLY end the Party of Lincoln.
btw, in response to an earlier comment- is there any particular problem with Saul Alinsky and the tactics needed to shake up change?
Kudos again wejo for hitting the bigtime. I saw it on Yahoo as well- kinda surreal to follow the Libya embassy killings with the Bill Walker/Paul Ryan story.
Agree totally with obee. The Republican Party is in absolute, 100% disarray and when they lose this election with the bumbling Romney at the helm, it will be real interesting to see what direction they go. If they continue to lurch further right, they will PERMANENTLY end the Party of Lincoln.
btw, in response to an earlier comment- is there any particular problem with Saul Alinsky and the tactics needed to shake up change?
Give us a break wrote:
dooly wrote:LR would be better served if they stayed out of politics. The posting of that article is stupid.
This is true, especially in light of the BS claim of Bill Walker that....
"I'm a registered Republican, but I'm voting for President Obama and Joe Biden. I think George Bush and the Republicans presided over the cause and the start of the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, and President Obama and the Democrats have done a good job getting the economy headed in the right direction, despite total Republican opposition. Plus I am repelled by the Republican Party's embracing those people who hate the President because of his race/color and who want to abolish a woman's right to abortion and deny people's right to marry whomever they want to marry."
This is seminar caller stuff you hear on talk radio all the time. The buzzwords and catch phrases are all straight out of the Alinsky playbook:
1. "... worst economic collapse since the Great Depression" - Same BS line Bill Clinton used in '92. Problem is, our current economic mess was caused by the federal government forcing banks to loan money to unqualified borrowers, which over time fostered the creation of those toxic assets we all heard about. This current ecomomic hardship was (A) created by Democrat policies, and (B) made worse by Obamanomics.
2. "Democrats have gotten the country headed in the right direction" - So perpetual 22% real unemployment, $4 a gallon gas, higher electric prices, $16 trillion in debt, a health care policy universally opposed by the American people, et al ad nauseum is "the right direction"?
3. "Republicans embracing those who hate the President per his skin color" - absolute BS, typical when-all-else-fails-play-the-race-card scuzzball politics. Black republicans might take issue with this claim, or are they not genuinely black?
4. Pro-Abortion, Pro-gay marriage, et al - Aren't these the big social causes being pushed by Democrats? Hardly the type of thing a registered republican would embrace.
And Bill Walker has the nerve to call Paul Ryan a liar?
A perfect example of the pot calling the kettle "black" ..... or whatever the politically correct version of that analogy might be.
Responding to talking points with talking points. Interesting.
crazy person wrote:
wejo wrote:The free tshirt for the yahoo screen shot has been claimed.
Damn. As the starter of the thread, I was hoping to get that. When I went to check my Yahoo email today, it was at the top of the "News" section. It probably appeared there because my browser at work knows my most visited website during the day might be Letsrun.com.
Sounds like someone wants banned.
Give us a break wrote:
1. "... worst economic collapse since the Great Depression" - Same BS line Bill Clinton used in '92. Problem is, our current economic mess was caused by the federal government forcing banks to loan money to unqualified borrowers, which over time fostered the creation of those toxic assets we all heard about. This current ecomomic hardship was (A) created by Democrat policies, and (B) made worse by Obamanomics.
Agreed that Clinton used it, but you can't deny that Obama inherited a mess, correct? Now, you seem to think it is the fault of Democrats, I seem to think it's the fault of the "don't regulate our capitalism" mantra, but Walker's point was that Obama inherited the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, which, other than possibly Black Monday, is true.
Give us a break wrote:
2. "Democrats have gotten the country headed in the right direction" - So perpetual 22% real unemployment, $4 a gallon gas, higher electric prices, $16 trillion in debt, a health care policy universally opposed by the American people, et al ad nauseum is "the right direction"?
Unemployment is reported the same way as it has been under previous presidents. As others have pointed out, your 22% number has no more substance to it. The way that I, and likely Bill, look at it is that we were hemorrhaging jobs in January 2009, now we are creating jobs each month (despite cutting back on government jobs, which Republicans should love!)
Give us a break wrote:
3. "Republicans embracing those who hate the President per his skin color" - absolute BS, typical when-all-else-fails-play-the-race-card scuzzball politics. Black republicans might take issue with this claim, or are they not genuinely black?
He didn't call all Republicans racist, so your point about black republicans is moot. He didn't even call the party racist. He just said that the party welcomes anyone who hates the President for whatever reason, even sinister ones.
Give us a break wrote:
4. Pro-Abortion, Pro-gay marriage, et al - Aren't these the big social causes being pushed by Democrats? Hardly the type of thing a registered republican would embrace.
I know plenty of fiscally conservative but socially liberal types. This is nothing new and shouldn't shock you.
been around ya' know wrote:
"It's news to me that, "the Republican Party's embrac(es) those people who hate the President because of his race/color."
You may not see it if you don't think that way or associate much with those that do, but republican political strategists are definitely courting those that do in order to garner enough votes to win the election.
Birtherism, muslim, socialist, european style governance, kenyan, arab, not a real american . . . all of these things are code that elicits an emotional response from racists.
These things just don't go away, and the reason they don't is because it strikes a cord with certain supporters of the republican party . . . and the ends justify the means, right?
You may think it is a fring part of the party that responds to this stuff and that they are not embraced by the mainstream, but they are not denounced either.
McCain stood up but he lost and the party is not going to do that again.
How on earth does "socialist" and "European style governance" imply racism?
It was an F'n mistake. He later said this and that his brother gave him a lot of crap for it.
Obama once said all "57 states" in the union. It was obviously a mistake. Move on.
I say I'd like to be quick to jump on board this hate train. But a moment's pause tore me away from throwing another metaphorical shovel full of coal ready to fuel the engine. I will prove my point with a anecdote:
I knew a college-aged girl who was super into fitness; a Cross Games fanatic. When we breached the topic of how I was involved in collegiate running and was telling what it would take to make the girls team, she was blown away.
"Only a 5:10 mile to walk on?!?! I've run 4:05 before. (Insert bombastic generalizations about the lack of athletic ability in running comments)"
Not trying to humiliate her on the spot, I replied
"really, when?"
"In high school"
Curious that I had stumbled across the rising Caster Semena of our time--as she was vasculine, I challenged her to run it again. She said she was more fit then ever and would gladly do it again.
Two weeks later clocked her at an underwhelming 7:45.
Moral of the story: I'm not going to condemn Ryan because I've had similar, yet less extremes, of this incident. When people are in "impress mode" they'll make things up. How is this any different from larger presidential promises. Republican or Democrat, when given the chance, they will skew any facts to tell you what you want to hear.
I don't get it... wrote:
I don't get it, why would you register Democrat just because the place you are living is primarliy Democrat? What advantage does that give you?
This is a serious question as I have no clue about this kind of thing.
If you live in a state with closed primaries and in an area that is dominated by one party, then the winning candidate is effectively chosen in the primary, not the general election. The non-dominant party may either not run a candidate for the general election or not run a serious candidate.
As a result, if you register as a member of the non-dominant party then the winning candidate has already been chosen by the time you get to vote in the general election. You might want to register in the dominant party instead, just to have a say in the party primary that really matters.
been around ya' know wrote:
"It's news to me that, "the Republican Party's embrac(es) those people who hate the President because of his race/color."
You may not see it if you don't think that way or associate much with those that do, but republican political strategists are definitely courting those that do in order to garner enough votes to win the election.
Birtherism, muslim, socialist, european style governance, kenyan, arab, not a real american . . . all of these things are code that elicits an emotional response from racists.
These things just don't go away, and the reason they don't is because it strikes a cord with certain supporters of the republican party . . . and the ends justify the means, right?
You may think it is a fring part of the party that responds to this stuff and that they are not embraced by the mainstream, but they are not denounced either.
McCain stood up but he lost and the party is not going to do that again.
Sounds like you have a racist view of white people. Perhaps because of some deep ugliness you see in the mirror that you project upon others. It's the democrats who constantly divide us along racial lines. Not the republicans.
Explanation wrote:
I don't get it... wrote:I don't get it, why would you register Democrat just because the place you are living is primarliy Democrat? What advantage does that give you?
This is a serious question as I have no clue about this kind of thing.
If you live in a state with closed primaries and in an area that is dominated by one party, then the winning candidate is effectively chosen in the primary, not the general election. The non-dominant party may either not run a candidate for the general election or not run a serious candidate.
As a result, if you register as a member of the non-dominant party then the winning candidate has already been chosen by the time you get to vote in the general election. You might want to register in the dominant party instead, just to have a say in the party primary that really matters.
A great example of this is Season 4(i think?) of the Wire
such a waste of time wrote:Obama once said all "57 states" in the union. It was obviously a mistake. Move on.
Not to defend Obama, but claiming to have visited all 57 states was nothing more than a matter of mis-speaking. Not unlike a person with five kids occasionally calling one of them by the name of one of his/her siblings.
In contrast, Ryan actually pontificated upon his alleged 2:50-something marathon. Ryan clearly and intentionally lied.
Thanks!
Agree wholeheartedly. How many times do I see someone say they are a republican only to jump in to the left's talking points one by one. Many times I have found out later their claim was totally false. Bill Walker's intentions were political from the moment he posted what he did.
I may not forget what my time was in a marathon but I did in some other events that I was not serious about year's later and got them wrong. Some things are just not that important.
If I wanted, I could probably post a list 100 items long of verifiable lies I have heard from Obama, Biden, Reid and Pelosi.
