• 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 .
My answers - off of the top of my head - are in bold type.
A Republican win is dependent on that being evident to the voter. To do that, Republicans will have to stop waring against Obama and get much more pro-active than they have been in the idea department, or at least do a job of any kind in letting someone know they have ideas.

They will need a new battle plan for Islamic terrorists. (bring every American soldier home, stop drone strikes and close Gitmo, slash military budget in half...let the Middle East work out it's own problems)

They will need a workable program for dealing with illegals, and to do that they must act to stop the flow as a priority, make it stick before they will have any acceptance on any amnesty. They will have to avoid that word, LOL. (build an Israeli-style wall on the Mexican border. In other words - lock the border down tight. Give every present illegal who has committed no crimes amnesty and a green card and after the wall is up, every, single illegal alien is sent home immediately - no matter age or excuse. If they want to come to America, go through official channels from home)

They will need a clear plan to get the economy back on a footing with some substance. (End the Fed, balance the budget, stop bailing out corporations and get the government to leave the economy alone except for welfare for those who need it - not just want it).

And they will have to at least, begin a dialogue on creating a real, workable health insurance scheme. (kill Obamacare, give every under 18, disabled person and Americans born before 1965 full government healthcare - everyone else just emergency healthcare - though once the baby boomers die out, the full government healthcare dies with them [still give it to children/disabled]. End all government regulations for healthcare except for medical standards and practices. In other words, strongly encourage competition among insurance companies. If people fall through the cracks - there is always charity.)

Otherwise, the meme of not having no alternate plans of their own will stick.
 
A Republican win is dependent on that being evident to the voter. To do that, Republicans will have to stop waring against Obama and get much more pro-active than they have been in the idea department, or at least do a job of any kind in letting someone know they have ideas.

They will need a new battle plan for Islamic terrorists.

They will need a workable program for dealing with illegals, and to do that they must act to stop the flow as a priority, make it stick before they will have any acceptance on any amnesty. They will have to avoid that word, LOL.

They will need a clear plan to get the economy back on a footing with some substance.

And they will have to at least, begin a dialogue on creating a real, workable health insurance scheme.

Otherwise, the meme of not having no alternate plans of their own will stick.

:agree: So far, since it's only been a little over a month, they have been settling in and showing the newbies the way things work. They will have their own agenda to work with now, since the voters showed them what they wanted in the mid-terms, so the Dems will have to accept the reality that they are no longer the majority in charge of both houses of Congress. They will probably finally get rid of the backlog of bills that Harry Reid refused to bring up for a simple up or down vote, so that should get done, which should make even the Dems feel better, since a lot of those were submitted by them. Why Reid held them up, too, I'll never understand.

They will have two years to show us what they can get done before the 2016 POTUS election, so I hope for the good of this country that they do what the voters said they'd like to see accomplished - namely pocketbook issues and jobs. People will be watching now to see how everyone votes on issues, so if there's blame to be given, it won't be a blanket condemnation - it will be evident who's to blame. Maybe we'll go back to the "old days," when both parties were willing to negotiate to get things done. It worked before, so it's not a pipedream - no reason why it can't work again, IMO.
 
Where have I said this anything to do with Obama?

Obama is pretty much your reference point. How many times have your referred to Obama in each of your posts in this Scott Walker thread? You average about 3 times a post.
 
The fading of a dream is difficult, the fading of a dream tasted is a bitter event and the realization comes slowly. For four, at least, of the six years we have had Obama, they have been whistling past the grave yard. Barrack Hussein Obama is such a very gifted speaker and debater, they bought his act, or believed the people had. 2010 was, I said then, a wake up call that ultimately went unheeded, then completely ignored when Obama manipulated a second term......

but they missed the part where the voter said "OK, we like you better than the other guy, but we want some restraints. here's more "enemies" to deal with....and it is there where the dream goes from almost real to a fog slowly burning off the mountain. And, as noted they didn't wake up then, Obama went "pen and phone" and boldly provoked yet another fight....

And down goes Humpty.....instead of a Clinton turn around, one of the most popular presidents to leave office in history, a lesson not learned and more damage to the brand.

Now, anyone attached to that, anyone who served in it, is suspect, guilt by association...as the political winds shift yet again, as they have since the first cave man figured out he could get more to eat if he "led"...

Now Hillary, serving so close to the presidency, tasting it, and now a chancy thing for her to brag on her record, she has a machine.....only a machine, force without substance. If she thinks she can win, she will run, which will be pretty much what I would want if I were managing the Republicans. It is lot harder to score off a fresh face than an old hag who has been in front of the US electorate for a quarter century. She is, in fact, too well known now....like an unwanted wart

Hillary has spent virtually her entire adult life planning and scheming to one day become president of the USA. Many politicians who waste their entire adult lives around that single goal and then fail, tend to lose a healthy portion of their sanity. Hillary's original plan was to run against Bush(W) in 2004. Bush's victory margin was extremely thin, and she assumed he had no public mandate and would be easy to defeat in 2004. Then came the terrorist attacks in 2001. Everyone rallied around the president. Poor Hillary knew that 2004 was out. She would have to wait until 2008. She was the clear front runner for the democrat party. Then out of nowhere comes Barack "Hussein" Obama. Suddenly her chances are nil until at least 2016. Now she is a tired old hag just hoping for a coronation and a lightweight nominee in the GOP primary. She likely prefers Jeb Bush.
 
A Republican win is dependent on that being evident to the voter. To do that, Republicans will have to stop waring against Obama and get much more pro-active than they have been in the idea department, or at least do a job of any kind in letting someone know they have ideas.

They will need a new battle plan for Islamic terrorists.

They will need a workable program for dealing with illegals, and to do that they must act to stop the flow as a priority, make it stick before they will have any acceptance on any amnesty. They will have to avoid that word, LOL.

They will need a clear plan to get the economy back on a footing with some substance.

And they will have to at least, begin a dialogue on creating a real, workable health insurance scheme.

Otherwise, the meme of not having no alternate plans of their own will stick.

Personally, I think the republican party just needs a new leader to pull them from the rut of establishment politics. The last such leader was Ronald Reagan. The next one could be Scott Walker.
 
Actually, an independent by definition is not a partisan.

You've never questioned my objectivity when I have question Hillary's candidacy or expressed opposition to the possibility of her being in the White House. You never called me a partisan when I said I would never vote for her.

I don't really pay attention to your comments on Hillary. I think most leftwingers by now, deep down have worked out that Hillarty is an old has been hag. I am more concerned with your lack of objectivity regarding Scott Walker. I can buy that you are an independent, however your choice of words when discussing Walker are straight out of the DNC handbook.
 
Walker and the rest of the Republican 'hopefuls' need to be be reminded that Mr. Obama isn't running in 2016. Their hatred of Obama runs so deep they keep attacking him like he's going to be their opponent in 2016.
 
Hillary has spent virtually her entire adult life planning and scheming to one day become president of the USA. Many politicians who waste their entire adult lives around that single goal and then fail, tend to lose a healthy portion of their sanity. Hillary's original plan was to run against Bush(W) in 2004. Bush's victory margin was extremely thin, and she assumed he had no public mandate and would be easy to defeat in 2004. Then came the terrorist attacks in 2001. Everyone rallied around the president. Poor Hillary knew that 2004 was out. She would have to wait until 2008. She was the clear front runner for the democrat party. Then out of nowhere comes Barack "Hussein" Obama. Suddenly her chances are nil until at least 2016. Now she is a tired old hag just hoping for a coronation and a lightweight nominee in the GOP primary. She likely prefers Jeb Bush.

something tells me that she would not fair well against Jeb. But, that is about the best summation I've seen. I also read somewhere that the Clinton inner circle considered, for a time, running her after Bill; decided against it when the polls showed that would tank them both...talk about coronation and dynasty.

Ironically, this afternoon at Vancouver Community College I see a poly sci lecture "What Hillary needs to do to restart her career?" Considering the college, it is astonishing they have already advanced to talking about recovery here, while much of the US still believes she is viable. Oops, as those students would have no vested interest either way. I may take it in.

What does she do? The term over-exposure comes to mind, a thing that torched the rocketing career of a brilliant Conservative in Saskatchewan. Everyone likes rising stars until they don't or stop rising which is a chicken and egg thing. In this case the star has been flat lined in the US for three decades plus, a whole new voting bloc, with yet a new mindset, some are calling generation "why". And the 'rise' has come and gone twice in the time they have been voting. They have seen her as Secretary of State at a time when terrorism expanded in the middle east and responsible, indirectly, for the big chunk coming out of their wallets when they are too young to need insurance.

So, what propelled Obama to victory against her is still unavailable to her, unless she can get through to them as a "fresh face" that will "get the country running again", the subtext of the last three congressional elections.

All of this draws a rather defined image of what the Republicans need to do to defeat her, but not too soon. It also is a statement about how the Republicans need to own the debate, and not let the Democratic propaganda machine do it for them, as has happened lately.
 
I don't really pay attention to your comments on Hillary.

Well you should. It would help you be more objective before you accuse me.

I think most leftwingers by now, deep down have worked out that Hillarty is an old has been hag.

You'd think a man your age would appreciate the virtues of being old. I often associate age with wisdom. Wisdom usually comes from making mistakes. By the time we reach a certain age we've made a lot of mistakes. I damn sure have. Some people never learn. Hillary is probably one of them.

Hillary, as with so many politicians, has an greatly exaggerated sense of self. If you want my opinion, or even if you don't, I believe it goes beyond that with Hillary. I think Hillary's entire life has been an orchestrated scam. Her marriage and even her one child, IMHO, were all part of her political plan. It isn't about America, the children, civil rights, America, peace or whatever. It never has been.

Now, I also believe that is close to being the case with many politicians. Democrats and Republicans all to often believe that cream rises to the top. Independents believe that sh*t floats. It is my opinion that Hillary is a perfect example of why I am an Independent. If you can accept that then you may also see why I am in no way a Walker supporter. Hillary and Walker are opportunists in a cess pool of opportunists. Yes, there are others. Right now the spotlight is on them.

I am more concerned with your lack of objectivity regarding Scott Walker. I can buy that you are an independent, however your choice of words when discussing Walker are straight out of the DNC handbook.

And if you had been reading my posts concerning Hillary you might see me accused of using quotes out of the GOP handbook.

You might have also noticed - if not you will have the opportunity to see it in the future - that I have been (will be) told time and time again by members of both parties that I am throwing my vote away if I vote for a third party candidate or an independent.
 
Walker and the rest of the Republican 'hopefuls' need to be be reminded that Mr. Obama isn't running in 2016. Their hatred of Obama runs so deep they keep attacking him like he's going to be their opponent in 2016.

As you see "hatred" where others see elected congressmen doing the job they promised voters they would do. Let us be mindful it was Obama that called them "enemies" first...

The "hate" accusation was "old news" in the first year of the first term when the race card had the numbers worn off.
 
As you see "hatred" where others see elected congressmen doing the job they promised voters they would do. Let us be mindful it was Obama that called them "enemies" first...

The "hate" accusation was "old news" in the first year of the first term when the race card had the numbers worn off.

Walker's a governor. Even so the hatred the GOP has shown against this president is off the charts. They've accused him of everything from treason, to purposely trying to destroy the country, to being a dictator and now not loving the country. Nothing riles up the GOP base like telling them the president is trying to destroy the country they love.

The Republicans hate the fact that especially in 2012 a black guy with diminishing popularity and in a weak economy easily beat the best the GOP had to offer. And I think they know they can't win in 2016 either.
 
Walker's a governor. Even so the hatred the GOP has shown against this president is off the charts. They've accused him of everything from treason, to purposely trying to destroy the country, to being a dictator and now not loving the country. Nothing riles up the GOP base like telling them the president is trying to destroy the country they love.

The Republicans hate the fact that especially in 2012 a black guy with diminishing popularity and in a weak economy easily beat the best the GOP had to offer. And I think they know they can't win in 2016 either.

Hmmm


As opposed to "enemies", "traitors", "jihadists", "terrorists"?

How about the attacks, still, on Sarah Palin, who has been called a ****, slut, whore and other epithets

Shall we go back to the Bush years and have a chat about what was said about him?

Those who live in glass house should not throw stones. From this vantage point the sewage is pretty equal...but you are going to be seeing a lot more of it. Get used to it, it's payback, it's politics American style....
 
I didn't say the attacks were one-way. They're not, and never have been nor will they ever be one-way. That's politics.

I said the attacks against this president has been off the charts. He's a Muslim. He was sworn in using the Koran. He hates whites. Is/was a communist. Is/was a traitor. Is/was a dictator. Fake birth certificate. Won't say the Pledge of Allegiance. Is purposely trying to destroy the country. Is the anti-Christ. Is in the pocket of the Muslim Brotherhood.

All politicians are attacked, but not to this level, not on this scale. When you accuse a president of treason, when you accuse him of purposely tiring to destroy the country, it's gone to far. Then you're going in dangerous territory.
 
Hmmm


As opposed to "enemies", "traitors", "jihadists", "terrorists"?

How about the attacks, still, on Sarah Palin, who has been called a ****, slut, whore and other epithets

Shall we go back to the Bush years and have a chat about what was said about him?

Those who live in glass house should not throw stones. From this vantage point the sewage is pretty equal...but you are going to be seeing a lot more of it. Get used to it, it's payback, it's politics American style....

Never mind I'm new here and didn't realize who I was talking to. I just found this quote of yours concerning Obama in another thread. I don't waste my time with people like you.

Nevertheless, they are the words of a president, and suggest strongly that his relationship with Islam may be more important than his relationship with America...
 
Walker and the rest of the Republican 'hopefuls' need to be be reminded that Mr. Obama isn't running in 2016. Their hatred of Obama runs so deep they keep attacking him like he's going to be their opponent in 2016.

As opposed to the left wing hatred of Bush for eight years?
 
something tells me that she would not fair well against Jeb. But, that is about the best summation I've seen. I also read somewhere that the Clinton inner circle considered, for a time, running her after Bill; decided against it when the polls showed that would tank them both...talk about coronation and dynasty.

Ironically, this afternoon at Vancouver Community College I see a poly sci lecture "What Hillary needs to do to restart her career?" Considering the college, it is astonishing they have already advanced to talking about recovery here, while much of the US still believes she is viable. Oops, as those students would have no vested interest either way. I may take it in.

What does she do? The term over-exposure comes to mind, a thing that torched the rocketing career of a brilliant Conservative in Saskatchewan. Everyone likes rising stars until they don't or stop rising which is a chicken and egg thing. In this case the star has been flat lined in the US for three decades plus, a whole new voting bloc, with yet a new mindset, some are calling generation "why". And the 'rise' has come and gone twice in the time they have been voting. They have seen her as Secretary of State at a time when terrorism expanded in the middle east and responsible, indirectly, for the big chunk coming out of their wallets when they are too young to need insurance.

So, what propelled Obama to victory against her is still unavailable to her, unless she can get through to them as a "fresh face" that will "get the country running again", the subtext of the last three congressional elections.

All of this draws a rather defined image of what the Republicans need to do to defeat her, but not too soon. It also is a statement about how the Republicans need to own the debate, and not let the Democratic propaganda machine do it for them, as has happened lately.

I don't know for sure how she would fare against Jeb Bush, however Jeb or someone like him that does not appeal to the mainstream conservative base is just what Hillary wants, and for that matter what the democrats want, regardless of whether Hillary is their nominee. Their biggest feat is a straight shooting populist conservative like Scott Walker. The only downside the Hillary camp sees with Jeb is they can write off the state of Florida.
 
Well you should.

No Thanks.


It would help you be more objective before you accuse me.

I am being objective. I respect that you claim to be an independent. I don't doubt that you are registered that way. So am I. However your comments regarding Walker look pretty much like most partisan democrats would write. I call them as I see them.

You'd think a man your age would appreciate the virtues of being old. I often associate age with wisdom. Wisdom usually comes from making mistakes. By the time we reach a certain age we've made a lot of mistakes. I damn sure have. Some people never learn. Hillary is probably one of them.

What I have gained from age and wisdom is a general distrust of establishment politicians of either stripe. Some of them are political whores....and I do not meant that in a sexual sense.

Hillary, as with so many politicians, has an greatly exaggerated sense of self. If you want my opinion, or even if you don't, I believe it goes beyond that with Hillary. I think Hillary's entire life has been an orchestrated scam. Her marriage and even her one child, IMHO, were all part of her political plan. It isn't about America, the children, civil rights, America, peace or whatever. It never has been.

I agree...and have many times over the last few years made the point that politicians whose entire adult lives revolve around one day running for president tend to lose their minds when they fail. Hillary and Al Gore are two prime examples.

Now, I also believe that is close to being the case with many politicians. Democrats and Republicans all to often believe that cream rises to the top. Independents believe that sh*t floats. It is my opinion that Hillary is a perfect example of why I am an Independent. If you can accept that then you may also see why I am in no way a Walker supporter. Hillary and Walker are opportunists in a cess pool of opportunists. Yes, there are others. Right now the spotlight is on them.

I would think a true independent....at least one who dislikes establishment politicians would have a healthy dose of respect for a populist candidate like Walker....whether you agree with his politics or not. He does not play the game establishment politicians play. He does what he says he is going to do.

And if you had been reading my posts concerning Hillary you might see me accused of using quotes out of the GOP handbook.

But then this thread is about Walker.

You might have also noticed - if not you will have the opportunity to see it in the future - that I have been (will be) told time and time again by members of both parties that I am throwing my vote away if I vote for a third party candidate or an independent.

I used to feel the same way. Not now. I maintain mainstream conservative beliefs and values. If there is not a mainstream conservative candidate running, I will just skip that part of the ballot. As far as I am concerned, if I were to vote for the republican candidate merely because he has an "R" in front of his name on the ballot, I would be throwing my vote away. A candidate must earn my vote.
 
Walker's a governor. Even so the hatred the GOP has shown against this president is off the charts. They've accused him of everything from treason, to purposely trying to destroy the country, to being a dictator and now not loving the country. Nothing riles up the GOP base like telling them the president is trying to destroy the country they love.

I am a conservative independent. However I will point out that you are being a bit intellectually dishonest. The alleged hatred of Obama by the right has not nearly approached the level of hatred the left displayed against Bush. My bet is that you were one of the haters. And the dictator charge against Obama does have some justification. If you have not noticed, now that Obama no longer has to worry about elections for the remainder of his second term, he is using executive orders on a massive scale to do what he cannot get congress to do. The legislative branch is not their to answer to the executive office's beck and calling. Obama is supposed to be running the executive branch. He is attemping to control both the executive and the legislative branch. That is not how representative government is supposed to work. What Obama is in effect telling the voters....."Don't bother voting for Senators and House members. If I don't get my way, I will bypass them with executive orders."


The Republicans hate the fact that especially in 2012 a black guy with diminishing popularity and in a weak economy easily beat the best the GOP had to offer. And I think they know they can't win in 2016 either.

The continued use of the race card by the left is so childish. I don't think anyone really cares what Obama's race is....they only care about the damage he is doing. And to be honest, I think it's the democrats who are afraid in regards to 2016. The only way the republicans can lose is if they nominate another geriatric RINO.
 
Hmmm


As opposed to "enemies", "traitors", "jihadists", "terrorists"?

How about the attacks, still, on Sarah Palin, who has been called a ****, slut, whore and other epithets

Shall we go back to the Bush years and have a chat about what was said about him?

Those who live in glass house should not throw stones. From this vantage point the sewage is pretty equal...but you are going to be seeing a lot more of it. Get used to it, it's payback, it's politics American style....

Many of these leftwingers have selectively short memories. They choose not to remember the assassination threads that were written on talkboards while Bush was president. And you are right about the "payback" aspect. They dished it out during Bush's eight years and now they are getting their noses rubbed in it and they don't like it.
 
Back
Top Bottom