• 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 Walkers lack of College Degree.

Is Scott Walkers lack of a degree an issue

  • Yes, I dont take orders from some quitter

    Votes: 13 21.0%
  • No, he has enough real world experience to do the job

    Votes: 43 69.4%
  • Somewhat, I would like to see him finish.

    Votes: 6 9.7%

  • Total voters
    62
  • Poll closed .
Who do you think would be better than Walker?

A squirrel, a monkey, or anything else found in a zoo. Hell, even an ant might be better.
 
This is just a theory that I've been tossing around for a couple years now. The general fact regarding incumbent and/or known candidates having overwhelming advantage in elections and re-elections is well known. However, maybe... just maybe... the voting populace actually did choose Obama *because* he was a relative outsider. Maybe people did consciously go for the "new guy" over the 'old and stale', because they were tired of the same old crap.

If so, it doesn't seem to have worked out well for us. One of Obama's biggest failures has been his utter inability to even communicate with Congress. Either side of Congress, even.

This potential is causing me to rethink what has become for me a knee-jerk reaction against incumbents. Maybe we need people with at least some experience, people who understand the game and who will play the game.

I have to wonder if Obama could have been a decent President if he had a couple more Senate terms under his belt, and maybe this is why the Dems aren't putting forth any new names this time.

Obama's tenure as senator was not exemplary since it was obvious both at the state and national level that he had little interest in issues or government and, as a result, doesn't have a commendable voting record either place. He was being groomed for personal glory and I believe that has been his goal. I believe he has little or no interest in governing now and sometimes he seems frustrated or irritated that he is even being bothered with mundane things like the economy or civil unrest or terrorism. I don't believe I have ever detected even a flash of true passion or conviction in this man ever. The closest thing to it is when he talks about Islam. There he does become more animated and engaged. There he has been very consistent.

The questionable people he surrounds himself with, his disinterest in and cluelessness of what drives the economy and his seemingly unawareness of the damage that his policies such as the ACA are doing, and his unwillingness to be a competent administrator and thereby allowing bureaucrats to run amuck, have set the country back significantly. His goal is to be loved and appreciated by those he thinks he can persuade to love and appreciate him and that is what he focuses on. Everybody else can be damned for all he seems to care. He makes George Bush look good and makes Bill Clinton look brilliant.

A Scott Walker I believe would surround himself with good people who would offset his personal weaknesses, he would educate himself on issues as the need arose, he would be hands on and engaged in governance and administration, and I think would do a credible job as POTUS. I just think, given that simple lack of a diploma, he is likely unelectable.
 
Obama's tenure as senator was not exemplary since it was obvious both at the state and national level that he had little interest in issues or government and, as a result, doesn't have a commendable voting record either place. He was being groomed for personal glory and I believe that has been his goal. I believe he has little or no interest in governing now and sometimes he seems frustrated or irritated that he is even being bothered with mundane things like the economy or civil unrest or terrorism. I don't believe I have ever detected even a flash of true passion or conviction in this man ever. The closest thing to it is when he talks about Islam. There he does become more animated and engaged. There he has been very consistent.

The questionable people he surrounds himself with, his disinterest in and cluelessness of what drives the economy and his seemingly unawareness of the damage that his policies such as the ACA are doing, and his unwillingness to be a competent administrator and thereby allowing bureaucrats to run amuck, have set the country back significantly. His goal is to be loved and appreciated by those he thinks he can persuade to love and appreciate him and that is what he focuses on. Everybody else can be damned for all he seems to care. He makes George Bush look good and makes Bill Clinton look brilliant.

A Scott Walker I believe would surround himself with good people who would offset his personal weaknesses, he would educate himself on issues as the need arose, he would be hands on and engaged in governance and administration, and I think would do a credible job as POTUS. I just think, given that simple lack of a diploma, he is likely unelectable.


why does the US have better GDP growth and unemployment stats than WI ?
 


Indeed. One wonders that if he hasn't done anything about his 'agenda' from "Day One" by now, what makes us think he will focus on it in the next two years?
 
Color me unsurprised that liberal / progressive / Democrat / Elitists value academic theoretical knowledge over hard won practical, 'hands on' knowledge.

You can see it in the theory based public policies they keep pushing, rather than ones based on common sense and the real world, and yet they keep wondering why their public policies keep failing. :lamo
What's that about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? :lamo

Like the War on Drugs?
Like the War on Terror?
Like Trickle Down Economics?
 
Indeed. One wonders that if he hasn't done anything about his 'agenda' from "Day One" by now, what makes us think he will focus on it in the next two years?



"I will work with them...?"

Beginning when?

What a nasty little arrogant prick this guy is. Never lets even the slightest jab go by, not one ounce of humility.
 
why does the US have better GDP growth and unemployment stats than WI ?

I don't know. Does it? Wisconsin I believe ranks 20th in the nation in population and 20th in the nation in GDP. And it also has a decent record on wage/household income increase and I believe is in the top 10 states with lowest official and actual unemployment rates. Seems to me the folks in Wisconsin are doing okay.
 
"I will work with them...?"

Beginning when?

What a nasty little arrogant prick this guy is. Never lets even the slightest jab go by, not one ounce of humility.

Exactly. When the GOP leadership approached him early in his first term, he informed them he would not consider their requests or proposals because 'he won'. And there was that infamous line later on that the Republicans were welcome to come along but they would have to sit in back. . . .

Can you imagine how much George W. Bush would have been vilified and crucified with a line like that? But the leftwing surrogate media barely reported it, much less allowed it to linger.

And his SOTU address this year made it crystal clear that he didn't give a flying fig that the people had rejected his policies and the Democrats and had put the Republicans back in charge of Congress. He seems oblivious to that fact today.

Yes, an arrogant prick.

I do believe a Scott Walker or somebody of his political acumen and temperament would be much more responsive and much less arrogant.
 
I don't know. Does it? Wisconsin I believe ranks 20th in the nation in population and 20th in the nation in GDP. And it also has a decent record on wage/household income increase and I believe is in the top 10 states with lowest official and actual unemployment rates. Seems to me the folks in Wisconsin are doing okay.

http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2015/02/16/data-wonk-the-walker-economic-record/
terrible compared to neighbors and nation



Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization for States
19th and 18th in unemployment


but hey, don't bother looking things up. you with "belief" and "the gut".
:)
 
Like the War on Drugs?
Like the War on Terror?
Like Trickle Down Economics?

Those particular 3 policies are more grounded in fact and common sense than the ones typically purported by the left side of the spectrum.

Like the War on Drugs vs. Legalize all drugs - Which makes more sense, I mean in a practical sense?

Like the War on Terror vs. Ignore terrorists flying airplanes into building - Which makes more sense, I mean in a practical sense?

Like Trickle Down Economics vs. Massive government control and influence on the economy, ever increasing government debt and ever higher taxes - Which makes more sense, I mean in a practical sense?

Thanks for proving my point.
 
http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2015/02/16/data-wonk-the-walker-economic-record/
terrible compared to neighbors and nation

Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization for States
19th and 18th in unemployment

but hey, don't bother looking things up. you with "belief" and "the gut".
:)

I have looked things up so would suggest you find a more objective source than your first link. Your second link pretty clearly shows Wisconsin to be doing better than the national average.

Wisconsin was very slow to recover from the economic collapse of 2008 and hadn't been doing real well prior to that. Walker inherited a real mess. But Wisconsin does appear to have turned the corner and the economic outlook is pretty darn good for that state. I'm quite sure that no dedicated leftist wants to hear that or see that and will scour the internet trying to find anything to show Wisconsin is failing under Walker's leadership. But the truth is, it just isn't.
 
Vance Mack suggests Walker has done nothing new in Wisconsin. As per Vance Mack's suggestion I am looking closer at Scott Walker and will continue to look and compare his record with his predecessors. Up to this point I haven't been steady looking for Walker articles. My mind is already made up about him. But it won't hurt to spend some time reading about Walker.

This today:

Disability rights advocates in Wisconsin are concerned and surprised by a number of proposed cuts and changes to care services in Gov. Scott Walker's two-year budget.

Both Disability Rights Wisconsin and the Survival Coalition of Wisconsin Disability Organizations released memos this month highlighting provisions of the budget that would affect people with disabilities, including changes to long-term care for adults and children, the elimination of several programs and decreased legislative oversight of managed care organizations.

"We are really surprised by this, because there was no indication that changes of this magnitude were going to take place," said Beth Swedeen, executive director of the Wisconsin Board for People with Developmental Disabilities. "This seems to be a surprise to everybody: managed care organizations, the IRIS program, participants. Nobody seems to have known that this was coming."

The rest of the article here.

A few things I noticed. No one who is or will be affected by Walker's proposed change in state long term care knew anything about Walker's proposed change. People who questioned the change including the press were told to contact the state Department of Health Services (DHS). Apparently DHS didn't know about Walker's big plans either. Seems Walker didn't do his homework, didn't talk to stakeholders, didn't talk to state agencies prior to announcing changes. He did apparently talk to insurance companies, however. Imagine that. If that is correct, it's playing it backwards, isn't it? Shouldn't the other people be the first to be contacted and shouldn't discussions have been held with stakeholders and service agencies first? Makes me wonder what Walker's priorities are and where his loyalties lie.

It is going to save the state money? It doesn't appear that it will. While it does appear that it will adversely affect people with disabilities.

It's early yet, but are we going to see a trend at state level where conservative extremists start going after services for people with disabilities? Yesterday they tried to severely restrict service dogs in restaurants in Arizona. Licensing, documentation, papers, training, fees and fees and fees. Disabled veterans, blind people and others attended the committee hearing, even the restaurant association was against it. The community response was so overwhelming that after a half day hearing the entire committee -including the bill sponsor - voted it down.
 
Last edited:
Vance Mack suggests Walker has done nothing new in Wisconsin. As per Vance Mack's suggestion I am looking closer at Scott Walker and will continue to look and compare his record with his predecessors. Up to this point I haven't been steady looking for Walker articles. My mind is already made up about him. But it won't hurt to spend some time reading about Walker.

This today:



A few things I noticed. No one who is or will be affected by Walker's proposed change in state long term care knew anything about Walker's proposed change. People who questioned the change including the press were told to contact the state Department of Health Services (DHS). Apparently DHS didn't know about Walker's big plans either. Seems Walker didn't do his homework, didn't talk to stakeholders, didn't talk to state agencies prior to announcing changes. He did apparently talk to insurance companies, however. Imagine that. If that is correct, it's playing it backwards, isn't it? Shouldn't the other people be the first to be contacted and shouldn't have discussions have been held with stakeholders?



You have to understand.. this is the kind of stuff you learn in college.
 
Those particular 3 policies are more grounded in fact and common sense than the ones typically purported by the left side of the spectrum.

Like the War on Drugs vs. Legalize all drugs - Which makes more sense, I mean in a practical sense?

Like the War on Terror vs. Ignore terrorists flying airplanes into building - Which makes more sense, I mean in a practical sense?

Like Trickle Down Economics vs. Massive government control and influence on the economy, ever increasing government debt and ever higher taxes - Which makes more sense, I mean in a practical sense?

Thanks for proving my point.

Your definition of common sense appears to be a matter of convenience.
 
You have to understand.. this is the kind of stuff you learn in college.

Walker was apparently applying common sense rather than theoretical governance. ;) I'm sure it works for him and his insurance company financial backers, but his "common sense" seems to be screwing over his constituents and his employees.
 
Your definition of common sense appears to be a matter of convenience.

No, not really. How are these not based on common sense? On the event flow form beginning to end. Let's pick trickle down, for example.

The more a business grows, the more people they'll employ.
The more a business has money to invest, the more it will grow.
If the government takes less of their money, they'll have that to invest, and grow.

Yeah, seems like a pretty logical flow from source to sink. Too bad they forgot the 'demand' part which isn't optional. This seems to make a **** more common sense than 'Tax the hell out of them, and then have the government spend it' which seems to be the mantra of the left end of the spectrum.

War on drugs. Since these are illegal narcotics, and have been for a long time, would seem to make sense to try and prevent them from entering the country, as well as confiscating them from people who illegally possess them.
 
Indeed. One wonders that if he hasn't done anything about his 'agenda' from "Day One" by now, what makes us think he will focus on it in the next two years?

Still bitter/confused/hurt by Obama's back-to-back wins? :)
 
Still bitter/confused/hurt by Obama's back-to-back wins? :)

More like dismayed that we have enough idiots in this country who would re-elect an unqualified person who performed miserably in his first term over an imminently qualified person with a really good track record.

And I'm afraid if we try to run an imminently qualified person like Scott Walker against an imminently unqualified person with a dismal record like Hillary Clinton, it will probably happen again.
 
It's only relevant to people who were never going to vote for him anyway.

I would not dismiss Scott Walker's not having a degree so nonchalantly. We live in a complex global world where every presidential contender should be armed with every defense possible beginning with a college degree and not leave himself exposed to those who are better prepared. A degree teaches one to think and to do the best job possible armed with a brain that is confident and capable of communicating with all leaders from all countries -- not evade a trivial question like evolution because he's afraid of displeasing his puppeteers. George W Bush supposedly received an MBA, but the proof of how well he did is reflected in his often repeated malapropism. This just shows college is not for everyone, but then again, GWB should never have been president of the US because he was an unmitigated disaster for America and consequently for the world.
 
I would not dismiss Scott Walker's not having a degree so nonchalantly. We live in a complex global world where every presidential contender should be armed with every defense possible beginning with a college degree and not leave himself exposed to those who are better prepared. A degree teaches one to think and to do the best job possible armed with a brain that is confident and capable of communicating with all leaders from all countries -- not evade a trivial question like evolution because he's afraid of displeasing his puppeteers. George W Bush supposedly received an MBA, but the proof of how well he did is reflected in his often repeated malapropism. This just shows college is not for everyone, but then again, GWB should never have been president of the US because he was an unmitigated disaster for America and consequently for the world.
So you had planned on voting for Walker until you heard this news then?
 
I would not dismiss Scott Walker's not having a degree so nonchalantly. We live in a complex global world where every presidential contender should be armed with every defense possible beginning with a college degree and not leave himself exposed to those who are better prepared. A degree teaches one to think and to do the best job possible armed with a brain that is confident and capable of communicating with all leaders from all countries -- not evade a trivial question like evolution because he's afraid of displeasing his puppeteers. George W Bush supposedly received an MBA, but the proof of how well he did is reflected in his often repeated malapropism. This just shows college is not for everyone, but then again, GWB should never have been president of the US because he was an unmitigated disaster for America and consequently for the world.

You can't possibly believe this.
 
So you had planned on voting for Walker until you heard this news then?

No, I had not planned on voting for Scott Walker who is a conservative Republican. My ideology is at the opposite end of the political spectrum. My post was a generalized one, not partisan, in which I believe all public leaders of ordinary American citizens should be well armed academically.
 
I would not dismiss Scott Walker's not having a degree so nonchalantly. We live in a complex global world where every presidential contender should be armed with every defense possible beginning with a college degree and not leave himself exposed to those who are better prepared. A degree teaches one to think and to do the best job possible armed with a brain that is confident and capable of communicating with all leaders from all countries -- not evade a trivial question like evolution because he's afraid of displeasing his puppeteers. George W Bush supposedly received an MBA, but the proof of how well he did is reflected in his often repeated malapropism. This just shows college is not for everyone, but then again, GWB should never have been president of the US because he was an unmitigated disaster for America and consequently for the world.

I disagree. College is imminently useful in teaching people to research, study, assimilate, and organize information as well as various coping and discipline skills. But it is the course work and not the degree that imparts such skill sets and those same skill sets can be acquired by other means. And I have know more than one person who graduated college with honors and went on to acquire advanced degrees that don't have the common sense that God gave a goose.

It was not George W. Bush's education, intellect, or manner of speech that sunk his presidency, but it was the very wrong headed and mostly progressive notions that he chose to adopt. He would have been an absolute darling of the left if he had just had a "D" after his name instead of an "R". Still he was enough of a fiscal conservative that he was able to accomplish some good things too. But that came from his convictions and ideology and not so much from his education.

I am confident that Scott Walker has sufficient college and sufficient success in college to have gained most of what there is to gain from the experience. The lack of the degree is useful to his opponents because they will sell it as evidence that he is inadequate to the job and they won't temper that with the very clear evidence on record that he is.
 
I would not dismiss Scott Walker's not having a degree so nonchalantly. We live in a complex global world where every presidential contender should be armed with every defense possible beginning with a college degree and not leave himself exposed to those who are better prepared. A degree teaches one to think and to do the best job possible armed with a brain that is confident and capable of communicating with all leaders from all countries -- not evade a trivial question like evolution because he's afraid of displeasing his puppeteers. George W Bush supposedly received an MBA, but the proof of how well he did is reflected in his often repeated malapropism. This just shows college is not for everyone, but then again, GWB should never have been president of the US because he was an unmitigated disaster for America and consequently for the world.

1) Scott Walker is 47. Do you believe he hasn't learned anything in the last 25 years?

2) Do you believe that people in general stop learning upon graduation?

3) Do you place academic theory above that of experience?

4) Do people enter college with an inability to think?

5) Is college the ONLY place where a person can learn to cope and grow with the world?

6) Is what a person learned in an academic setting even relevant 25 years later?
 
Back
Top Bottom