HitsRus;1779589 wrote:Exactly my point. Far too much attention is spent on Hillary. It is dangerous and short sighted to pooh pooh Sanders' electability for this election. He and his ideas should be attacked and discredited at every point. We cannot allow the neo-Bolsheviks to continue to run their playbook, and to destroy our posterity. History does and will repeat itself, and our way of life, our system of economics, and our constitutional republic must be defended.

HitsRus;1779610 wrote:No you don't...schools are supported by tax revenues, such that everyone can obtain a high school education. It is not free. People must vote to provide a level of support and have direct input as to how their schools are run.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1779620 wrote:which is how the universities would be funded..

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1779620 wrote:which is how the universities would be funded..

queencitybuckeye;1779625 wrote:There would be laws passed allowing the voters to decide on funding levels directly?

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1779620 wrote:which is how the universities would be funded..

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1779650 wrote:Funding to States for State Universities.... With guidelines and regulations and not just "here's a check" though.

sleeper;1779656 wrote:So basically "here's a check" for anyone who's not white.

I'd be okay with a system where if you graduate with a 3.5 or higher in a relevant field you get your entire college reimbursed. The people who score between a 3.0 and 3.49 pay the normal price of college and the people who score lower than 3.0 pay the cost of college for those who scored 3.5 or higher. It would eliminate trash from even bothering going to school and give a huge incentive to do well in school.

Of course, liberals don't like a system in which there are contingencies to get free things because they are seen as unfair to everyone who's not a white male.

gut;1779661 wrote:If you want "free college", first you are going to go to a 2-yr local/community college and prove (earn) that you can do the work. And that's on your dime. If you maintain a B average (and no watering down the reqs or lowering the bar), THEN you can get the final 2-yrs at a state college for a 4-yr degree.

The idea that we should EXPAND state universities to accommodate hundreds of thousands of incapable students who probably shouldn't be going to college is ridiculous.

This is ultimately an indictment of our secondary education system. We spend way more than most every other country there and get inferior results...in classic liberal logic, the solution is to dump MORE money into post-secondary education because that approach has been so successful in secondary education.

gut;1779661 wrote:
This is ultimately an indictment of our secondary education system. We spend way more than most every other country there and get inferior results...in classic liberal logic, the solution is to dump MORE money into post-secondary education because that approach has been so successful in secondary education.

gut;1779661 wrote:If you want "free college", first you are going to go to a 2-yr local/community college and prove (earn) that you can do the work. And that's on your dime. If you maintain a B average (and no watering down the reqs or lowering the bar), THEN you can get the final 2-yrs at a state college for a 4-yr degree.

The idea that we should EXPAND state universities to accommodate hundreds of thousands of incapable students who probably shouldn't be going to college is ridiculous.

This is ultimately an indictment of our secondary education system. We spend way more than most every other country there and get inferior results...in classic liberal logic, the solution is to dump MORE money into post-secondary education because that approach has been so successful in secondary education.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1779670 wrote:That's our healthcare in a nutshell, but you love that system?

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1779671 wrote:Realistically how it'd work is if you were a resident of that state, you'd get free tuition. If you flunked out or were dismissed, you'd lose out on your chance of eligibility. I know its terrible.. the thought of going to school with poor people.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1779670 wrote:That's our healthcare in a nutshell, but you love that system?

sleeper;1779675 wrote:Our healthcare is the best in the world and with that it is the most expensive.

The issue is cost not quality.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1779680 wrote:when reasonable people put Nationalism and ethnocentrism aside, and look at data, they see we're not even close to the best.

HitsRus;1779589 wrote:Exactly my point. Far too much attention is spent on Hillary. It is dangerous and short sighted to pooh pooh Sanders' electability for this election. He and his ideas should be attacked and discredited at every point. We cannot allow the neo-Bolsheviks to continue to run their playbook, and to destroy our posterity. History does and will repeat itself, and our way of life, our system of economics, and our constitutional republic must be defended.

sleeper;1779681 wrote:What data? Do you really believe the US has worse healthcare than Cuba? How many world leading Med schools are in Cuba? How many world leading pharmaceutical companies are in Cuba? How many world leading hospitals are in Cuba? How many world leading doctors, surgeons, nurses, specialists, etc. are in Cuba?

You're delusional at best if you think healthcare is better anywhere but here. Yes, its expensive.

Next time you have a medical issue, please go to Cuba instead of the US for your better quality lol.

SportsAndLady;1779591 wrote:Not to mention comparing social security to something like free college education.

News flash to libs: not everyone deserves to go to college and they'll be just fine without it.

BoatShoes;1779686 wrote:You bring up a great point. Americans broadly support Medicare and Social Security because they believe they have earned it and that it is a decent deal. Americans hate the word free.

....

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1779685 wrote:Who said anything about Cuba? Oh, just you?

like_that;1779590 wrote:This is a classic Bernie supporter argument when they realize democratic socialism is indeed socialism and their savior is in fact a socialist.

"Well our liberal president in the 30's who introduced us to deficit spending passed social security, so it's ok to go full blown socialism now even though our country was built on capitalism! It's ok though because our economy is already not doing well so we might as well get this temporary/short term fix in so poor people can feel a little less poor!"

/berniesupporterlogic

Also lol at using social security to prove a point considering how it's going to shit.


Sorry zwick, I'd prefer to be a world power while I am alive and pass it on to my children if I have any. If you're ok with setting up your kid(s) to be in a shitty situation at age 18-25, then more power to you I suppose.