• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scott Walker side steps foreign policy questions on UK trip

Re: Scott Walker--Embarrassment to America

sawdust said:
Evolution is a scientific theory which conflicts with some religious beliefs. Personally I think that evolution is the logical explanation for life on earth however I also believe that everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs. A belief in creation or intelligent design doesn't negate any individuals belief in every other scientific discipline. It's a distraction nothing more and personally don't think it has anything to do with a persons ability to lead a nation.
Click to expand...

Your words "evolution is the logical explanation for life on earth", is a nonsensical statement. Life must first exist in order that it evolve, creation and evolution are in two separate categories.
 
iguanaman said:
You lost it in the first sentence. How did this discussion become about believing in God? There was no mention of God in the OP, this is a discussion about belief in evolution which is something Walker does not want to admit to. No mention of God anywhere to be seen
But since you brought it up....Do you think the Pope believes in God? The Pope not only endorses and believes that evolution is the method of man's creation and even thinks it is BLASPHEMOUS to believe in Creation.
That is just his Holiness's way of saying "it's stupid don't do it". If Scott Walker needs to be called "stupid" by the Pope how good a President could he possibly be? LOL Not that Walker has a chance in hell of becoming the nominee no matter what he believes....
This was a waste of Walkers time anyway. Jeb is the anointed one and will be the GOP nominee. Romney dropped out in a huff when he found out. Poor Willard, he thought he had another run sewed up until Jeb popped up. Jeb;'s going to make you eat your words on immigration too. It's all about love, you didn't know that did you? Even though he will surely lose (another Bush?), Jeb will serve a purpose. he will show the party members that they will be dragged kicking and screaming into this century whether they want to or not. Think about that when you cast your vote.

Pope backs evolution, Vatican calls creation
Click to expand...

Just as I told you, belief in God doesn't immediately exclude belief in Evolution, the Pope would be a prime example. I think you are confusing extremist fundamental beliefs with many others who do believe and are not fundamentalists.

Either way, still doesn't mean that someone can't be good at a job. That you've never proven much less further backed up with additional citation or anything. Guess that part of your position falls to the way side.

And yet, your derision of anyone who doesn't believe as you do as being "stupid". Yeah, liberal intolerance for anyone who doesn't believe as they do, right there.

My advise would be to grow up and be a bit more tolerant of others and their beliefs, else one day, you might be the one out of step and without a chair when the music stops.
 
Re: Scott Walker--Embarrassment to America

beefheart said:
Gravity is just a theory.

Science works...whether or not you believe it.
Click to expand...

Explain to me the steps of inquiry to the scientific method and how its applied to evolution.
 
eohrnberger said:
Just as I told you, belief in God doesn't immediately exclude belief in Evolution, the Pope would be a prime example. I think you are confusing extremist fundamental beliefs with many others who do believe and are not fundamentalists.

Either way, still doesn't mean that someone can't be good at a job. That you've never proven much less further backed up with additional citation or anything. Guess that part of your position falls to the way side.

And yet, your derision of anyone who doesn't believe as you do as being "stupid". Yeah, liberal intolerance for anyone who doesn't believe as they do, right there.

My advise would be to grow up and be a bit more tolerant of others and their beliefs, else one day, you might be the one out of step and without a chair when the music stops.
Click to expand...

LOL You need to write the Pope about his "liberal intolerance". He called creationism blasphemy! It's not a liberal thing it's an intelligence thing. We are in the new millennium and we just don't have time to educate thick headed dolts about things they should have learned in 3rd grade. We just write them off as hopeless and do our best to keep them out of jobs where thinking is important. What would you do? Trust your families well being to someone who thinks we were poofed into existence by a wizard? To quote G. Bush senior, 'It isn't prudent."
 
Last edited:
Re: Scott Walker--Embarrassment to America

johndylan1 said:
How does his answer reflect a non belief in science?
Click to expand...

Since he refused to say, his answer didn't reflect a belief in evolution. Who knows what he thinks science is because he kept using it in the same sentence as 'faith'.


It's what Walker doesn't say that seems to count. IE: he never said he was going to bust the unions during his first campaign. So if he won't say if he believes in evolution then it's highly likely he doesn't and would sabotage science based programs, projects and research if elected.
 
Re: Scott Walker--Embarrassment to America

MrVicchio said:
Wow, you dig that up from wiki?

Its a theory, and a decent one. Some believe that random luck made chaos settle into order. Some belive that order had guidance. I can see both sides and why people would believe either way.
Click to expand...

Chaos has settled into order? Well, there goes another theory. And here I was thinking the universe tended to chaos and that's why my truck depreciated when I drove it off the lot.
 
Re: Scott Walker--Embarrassment to America

Risky Thicket said:
While Walker's religious convictions don't bother me. As far as I know he has not made an attempt to include religion in Wisconsin's government. I believe in the separation of church and state.

Addressing the other part of the OP, it doesn't surprise me that Walker did not want to address foreign policy because to my knowledge Walker has no experience in foreign policy and as far as I can tell no substantive ideas regarding foreign policy. Here again Walker should have known that UK, our strongest ally, would be curious as to how this presumed GOP presidential candidate would respond to a few questions relating to how a Walker in the White House might affect the lives of people in the UK. Or did Walker believe the public forum in London was to address questions about cheese?
Click to expand...
Did you bother to read the article? He was addressing Chatham House and discussing domestic and foreign trade policies. It was not a public forum and meet and greet.

Maybe a better question might be asked as to why the 'media' descended to ask such a stupid question in that forum. Sounds like the UK is about on par with the US media, though a few slight notches lower than TMZ.
 
Re: Scott Walker--Embarrassment to America

VanceMack said:
Did you bother to read the article? He was addressing Chatham House and discussing domestic and foreign trade policies. It was not a public forum and meet and greet.

Maybe a better question might be asked as to why the 'media' descended to ask such a stupid question in that forum. Sounds like the UK is about on par with the US media, though a few slight notches lower than TMZ.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did. Chatham House is the foremost think tank on foreign policy in the world. How dare those Brits ask questions about, you know, foreign policy.
 
Re: Scott Walker--Embarrassment to America

Risky Thicket said:
Yes, I did. Chatham House is the foremost think tank on foreign policy in the world. How dare those Brits ask questions about, you know, foreign policy.
Click to expand...
He was invited to speak on commerce...not foreign policy. It would have been inappropriate for him to speculate on foreign policy in his capacity at the time.

Building Global Partnerships for Stronger Local Economies | Chatham House
[h=2]Overview[/h]Drawing on his experience as governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker will outline the importance of forging strong global partnerships to fuel business growth and build prosperous local economies. Governor Walker will consider how mutually beneficial partnerships can be developed within the global community and the impact of these on local communities.
- See more at: Building Global Partnerships for Stronger Local Economies | Chatham House
 
Last edited:
Fenton said:
Huh ??

They tried 3 different times to remove him from office and now your'e saying their holding something back on Walker ?

Thats such BS. No one believes the left anymore. You can thank this President for crushing any credibility the Democrats had prior to 2008.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference in trying to remove an elected governor from office and trying to elect someone who has demonstrated a significant amount of hostility to the concerns of working people to the office of President of the United States. While it is true that wealthy, influential conservatives have managed to demonize worker's unions in the minds of the electorate, it is also true that many people have difficulty finding the means to make ends meet, due in part to conservative ideas such as deregulation of finance and globalization which has led to the outsourcing of jobs. As such, if the issues are framed properly, and people like Scott Walker are exposed for what they truly are, i.e. advocating the interests of the wealthy at the expense of middle class and lower class workers, then the odds for Scott Walker becoming President of the United States become low.
 
Re: Scott Walker--Embarrassment to America

johndylan1 said:
Explain to me the steps of inquiry to the scientific method and how its applied to evolution.
Click to expand...

You have the internet. Look it up yourself if you are so inclined.
 
Re: Scott Walker--Embarrassment to America

Moot said:
Since he refused to say, his answer didn't reflect a belief in evolution. Who knows what he thinks science is because he kept using it in the same sentence as 'faith'.


It's what Walker doesn't say that seems to count. IE: he never said he was going to bust the unions during his first campaign. So if he won't say if he believes in evolution then it's highly likely he doesn't and would sabotage science based programs, projects and research if elected.
Click to expand...

"What he doesn't say" is an unknown. To base you argument on an unknown is a logical fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance).
 
Re: Scott Walker--Embarrassment to America

beefheart said:
You have the internet. Look it up yourself if you are so inclined.
Click to expand...

I know the standard for scientific inquiry. I just cant see how you are applying it to evolution as opposed to faith. They are in two separate categories of inquiry, they don't oppose. For you to argue that they do is evidence that you understand neither.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL You need to write the Pope about his "liberal intolerance". He called creationism blasphemy! It's not a liberal thing it's an intelligence thing. We are in the new millennium and we just don't have time to educate thick headed dolts about things they should have learned in 3rd grade. We just write them off as hopeless and do our best to keep them out of jobs where thinking is important. What would you do? Trust your families well being to someone who thinks we were poofed into existence by a wizard? To quote G. Bush senior, 'It isn't prudent."
Click to expand...

Still, regardless of one's personal spiritual beliefs, your assertion that because of those beliefs they can't perform well in a particular job has no foundation in reality.
As such any claims or denigration of those who hold personal spiritual beliefs other than your own is also without foundation in reality.

The reality is that Scott Walker's personal spiritual beliefs have no, and will continue to have no, bearing on what he has, and hopefully will continue to, accomplish in his elected office and any future offices he's elected to.
 
MildSteel said:
There is a big difference in trying to remove an elected governor from office and trying to elect someone who has demonstrated a significant amount of hostility to the concerns of working people to the office of President of the United States. While it is true that wealthy, influential conservatives have managed to demonize worker's unions in the minds of the electorate, it is also true that many people have difficulty finding the means to make ends meet, due in part to conservative ideas such as deregulation of finance and globalization which has led to the outsourcing of jobs. As such, if the issues are framed properly, and people like Scott Walker are exposed for what they truly are, i.e. advocating the interests of the wealthy at the expense of middle class and lower class workers, then the odds for Scott Walker becoming President of the United States become low.
Click to expand...

Oh wow! Another liberal progressive predicting that their opposition has no chance TWO YEARS before an election....Fail.
 
What's wrong with punting on a question? I wish politicians weren't so damn scared of acknowledging they aren't experts in all fields and all subjects. The most dangerous people are those who are ill-informed but certain they are right.
 
j-mac said:
Oh wow! Another liberal progressive predicting that their opposition has no chance TWO YEARS before an election....Fail.
Click to expand...

So you think the Koch brothers will be able to get Walker elected president? I don't think so.

But the more we learn about Charles and David Koch’s sway with top Republican leaders, thanks to embarrassing leaks from their June retreat, the clearer it is that attacks by Reid and other Democrats are justified and proportionate.

Also clear: Wisconsin is ground zero in the battle over whether the Kochs’ vision of a low-tax, union-free neo-feudalism prevails, and Gov. Scott Walker is a wholly owned Koch subsidiary.

On Wednesday we heard Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell thank the Kochs “for the important work you’re doing,” adding, “I don’t know where we’d be without you.” Then he promised to shut down the government again to force spending and regulatory cuts – clearly Reid was right when he said last year’s shutdown was on the Kochs — and block action on the minimum wage, extended unemployment insurance and the student loan crisis.

On Thursday in the Huffington Post we learned that Republican Governors Association director Phil Cox told the Kochs and their friends that he has “no stronger partner” than the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity. And nowhere has that partnership paid more dividends than in Wisconsin.

Not only did the Kochs’ investment in Walker pay off on Election Day 2010 and in his 2011 recall, Cox assured his patrons, it resulted in the achievement of one of their dearest goals: a decline in public sector union membership.
Click to expand...

Secret audio nails Scott Walker! A humiliating suck-up to the Koch brothers - Salon.com

Yep. Looks like Republicans are all about giving the rich all the money and letting them trickle it back down to everyone else. I think that is going to be a rather tough sell.
 
Re: Scott Walker--Embarrassment to America

johndylan1 said:
I know the standard for scientific inquiry. I just cant see how you are applying it to evolution as opposed to faith. They are in two separate categories of inquiry, they don't oppose. For you to argue that they do is evidence that you understand neither.
Click to expand...

Faith is fine...keep it the hell out of science and out of public schools.
 
Re: Scott Walker--Embarrassment to America

VanceMack said:
Did you bother to read the article? He was addressing Chatham House and discussing domestic and foreign trade policies. It was not a public forum and meet and greet.

Maybe a better question might be asked as to why the 'media' descended to ask such a stupid question in that forum. Sounds like the UK is about on par with the US media, though a few slight notches lower than TMZ.
Click to expand...

No, it was actually a great question. Europe have a heightened awareness of the neanderthal and simplistic thinking that exists amongst some the American politicians. It frightens them. The question well attacked that issue well. I don't think Walker exactly shinned in his answer. The man has to have better answers than that if he wants to play on the big stage.
 
Re: Scott Walker--Embarrassment to America

beefheart said:
Faith is fine...keep it the hell out of science and out of public schools.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Religion cannot be allowed into public policy. Kinda thought that was the entire point behind the separation of Church and State.

Of course that doesn't mean that a person of faith, or with faith, need be barred from holding office, nor that this person of faith would be any less capable while in office than a person not of faith. A point that some find rather confusing.
 
Re: Scott Walker--Embarrassment to America

upsideguy said:
No, it was actually a great question. Europe have a heightened awareness of the neanderthal and simplistic thinking that exists amongst some the American politicians. It frightens them. The question well attacked that issue well. I don't think Walker exactly shinned in his answer. The man has to have better answers than that if he wants to play on the big stage.
Click to expand...
So you are saying the man was invited to speak at an economic forum and they decided to use that as an excuse to ask him completely unrelated questions they would never ask of a liberal politician? In other words...Their press are scumbags too?

Where they 'frightened' by Obama's Christianity?
 
Re: Scott Walker--Embarrassment to America

johndylan1 said:
"What he doesn't say" is an unknown. To base you argument on an unknown is a logical fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance).
Click to expand...

Not answering a direct question can speak volumes.
 
Re: Scott Walker--Embarrassment to America

eohrnberger said:
Agreed. Religion cannot be allowed into public policy. Kinda thought that was the entire point behind the separation of Church and State.

Of course that doesn't mean that a person of faith, or with faith, need be barred from holding office, nor that this person of faith would be any less capable while in office than a person not of faith. A point that some find rather confusing.
Click to expand...

I don't think he should be barred, but if he is a creationist, I think he is a dumba$$
 
Re: Scott Walker--Embarrassment to America

Moot said:
The US would lose a lot of credibility both foreign and domestic if it elected someone who doesn't believe in science.


I think Walker just kissed his chance for the nomination, goodbye.
Click to expand...

Barack Obama said he "walks with God" every day. There's not a chance in hell that nutcase could ever become president either, right? The USA would be a complete laughing stock here and in the whole world if something like that happened.
 
Re: Scott Walker--Embarrassment to America

Moot said:
The US would lose a lot of credibility both foreign and domestic if it elected someone who doesn't believe in science.


I think Walker just kissed his chance for the nomination, goodbye.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think so. Perhaps just wishful thinking on your part?

joko104 said:
Barack Obama said he "walks with God" every day. There's not a chance in hell that nutcase could ever become president either, right? The USA would be a complete laughing stock here and in the whole world if something like that happened.
Click to expand...

There's a separation between personal beliefs, public policy, and the execution of duties of the office. Personal beliefs, at least at the level we are discussing here, don't have much to do with public policy nor the ability of someone to execute the duties of the office they are elected to.

Equating personal spiritual beliefs to not believing in science is a false equivocation. There are many, if not the vast majority, that believe both in science as well as having personal spiritual beliefs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom