• 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 .
Not an insult at all, just an observation. There is a difference. If you take it as an insult, that's probably more telling than you want to admit.

Anyway, I've also been on record in this thread that the whole lack of a degree thing is a non-issue, and have stated clearly that track record is much more relevant. College simply isn't for everybody. College is also zero guarantee that a person is competent and capable.
 


can you give some quantified metrics that you think illustrate Walker's exemplary track record?
 
can you give some quantified metrics that you think illustrate Walker's exemplary track record?

He's won how many elections by the voters in Wisconsin? That's about all the quantified metrics anyone without a bias and agenda needs to know.
 
He's won how many elections by the voters in Wisconsin? That's about all the quantified metrics anyone without a bias and agenda needs to know.

well, so has Obama if that's your metric for determining someone's track record and qualifications for on the job success.
 
well, so has Obama if that's your metric for determining someone's track record and qualifications for on the job success.

I thought the question was about Governor Walker and Wisconsin. Election to National office like the President is a whole different metric. Or did you not know that?
 
I thought the question was about Governor Walker and Wisconsin. Election to National office like the President is a whole different metric. Or did you not know that?

If you RE-READ the comment I quoted and replied to, it was that Walker is more qualified for POTUS than Obama. You chose to interject your metric on why he's qualified (being re-elected {and only at a state level, to boot!} ). Sorry you didn't think it through.

Want to step back and try again?
 
How does "quantified metrics" jive with the fact that politics is mostly subjective?


Well, I didn't write this
" How is it extreme to want to elect a President with proven track record for success? When it is obvious that electing an unqualified Barack Obama has created far more problems for the country than anything good that has happened during his administration?"

But it seems things like gdp growth, changing deficits, job growth, employment, etc can all be used to evaluate someone's "track record", and can be quantified.
 

No. I'll just stick with your comment, and my reply. You're welcome to ignore it.
 

I don't see any of that as being any less subjective. Even things like the stuff you mentioned: Are they a direct result of a President's specific actions, or are they more or less independent and cyclicle (sp?) with whoever the sitting President is getting the blame and/or credit accordingly, even though they may not deserve either?
 

Sometimes they are (or can be) largely if not exclusively the result of a president (governor)'s actions or policy agendas.
 

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
 
can you give some quantified metrics that you think illustrate Walker's exemplary track record?

Sure.

Wisconsin was running one of the nation's worst state deficits when Walker was inaugurated. The tax cuts and collective bargaining reforms he pushed through the legislature have revitalized the dismal Wisconsin economy and turned a $3.6 billion deficit into a 900+ million dollar surplus and has helped Wisconsin cities save many millions more. Walker's goal of 10,000 new businesses in Wisconsin by 2015 was realized with 13,000 new businesses starting up or moving into the state by the end of 2013 and Wisconsin's real and official unemployment rate is under the national average in a very long time..

School districts now have the ability to hire and fire based on merit and pay for performance and school choice was expanded. Improvements are beginning to show on test scores though it will be some more years before the full effect of that will be known. And that was accomplished with a decrease in statewide school property taxes.

$1.2 billion was added to the Medicaid programs that had been seriously underfunded.

Assuming he would enjoy the same success at the federal level, we could do a whole lot worse than a Scott Walker as President.
 

Wisconsin has a growing state deficit as he has already blown through the surplus he temporarily obtained.
Wisconsin state budget shortfall projected at nearly $1.8 billion
Scott Walker cut $541 million in taxes last year. Now his state will miss a $108 million debt payment. - The Washington Post



don't see any quantified #s here.

$1.2 billion was added to the Medicaid programs that had been seriously underfunded.
so he's pro increase in transfer payments?

Assuming he would enjoy the same success at the federal level, we could do a whole lot worse than a Scott Walker as President.

Well, sure. Could do a lot better too.
 
This is what is wrong with voters in America...style over substance.

I have no idea who this Walker guy is (other then this thread), but most people that voted here say that if this guy had a degree - say even in Elizabethan Poetry - that he would be a better candidate for POTUS because it proves he did not quit college?
Or you people would have more respect for him if he never went to college? did any of you bother to find out why he quit college? Maybe it was for a good reason (or maybe not).

Ridiculous.

So, this guy quit college when he was much younger...and that is a noticeable strike against him?

What does that have anything to do with the White House? Like it is a sign he might quit the presidency part way through? Suuuuuure.


The ONLY things that should matter are how this guy stands on the issues of today. Not whether he finished college or just about anything else he did 20+ years ago.

'Well, I agree with his stance on all the major issues, but he quit college (even though I did not bother to find out why he did) so...he's out.'

:roll:

This is why you people keep voting in one useless turd of a POTUS after another...style over substance.
 
Last edited:

When you label somebody as 'extremist', you pretty well insult that person I think. At least I take such a label as insulting.

But I don't disagree that Scott Walker's track record SHOULD override his lack of a college diploma when evaluating his qualifications to be President. As I said, the Democrats aren't suggesting any names of ANYBODY who can even come close to competing for Walker's qualifications for the job.

But qualifications don't matter all that much do they. The people elected Barack Obama twice despite a miserable track record so far as successes to show before he was elected and despite a miserable showing in his first term. He was the media's choice--he had the right letter after his name--so they made him look glorious and made his opponents look inadequate and clueless. Imagine what they will do to a candidate with the wrong letter after his name who doesn't even have a college diploma. Few people will hear about Scott Walker's accomplishments and successes. But they'll hear a lot about that lack of a diploma.
 

What if someone took every single course required to graduate but chose not to put in for their degree?
 
Perhaps this might explain why Walker wants to cut even more money out of higher education.
 
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.
 

 

Who do you think would be better than Walker? And cite their track record and qualifications please.

As for the deferred principle payment, these happen in almost every state to balance cash flow. Such has been done I think I read seven times in Wisconsin since 2001 and before Walker was inaugurated. I wonder if those occasions were held up as black marks against the governor at that time?
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…