Sounds like a plan.

I started voting for the Green Party back in 2012 and have only became more intense in my voting since.

(May 14, 2016 at 3:34 am)Nymphadora Wrote:

(May 14, 2016 at 2:00 am)Sterben Wrote: Question one:Specifically what direction do you want this country to go?
A: I would like to see America become less of a corrupt country. A place were people can be become educated without become a financial slave to the system, and too be able to support themselves and their family's.

Yes... I believe that secondary education should be free. However, the teachers we have in our public schools are already underpaid, have to use outdated material and many times pay for their own supplies in the classroom out of the already meager wages they are earning now.
So, I ask you the following:
1. Just where should the money to support free college education come from?
2. What sort of criteria needs to be met in order for a student to get this free education?
3. If a person comes from a well off family, should their family be forced to pay for that child's college education or should that child go to school for free?

What about students who want to get into fields that require graduate school? That's another four years of post secondary education that needs to be supported. Careers such as doctors and lawyers require this additional schooling. Those are just two fields requiring not only the student take ethics classes, but upon obtaining their respective licenses, they are now upheld to a higher standard than say someone who doesn't need licensure from their state in order to practice their chosen field of study. They also must renew their license on a regular basis and must keep some sort of malpractice insurance, which can run into the thousands of dollars per year, to maintain.

For my chosen field, I will need to take AND pass my State Boards in order to legally practice my profession. While it's not costing me upwards of half a million dollars, I will have to obtain a license from my state or I cannot practice my field of study. I will be held to the same level of standards as that of a doctor or nurse or any other professional that requires a license to practice in my state. Yes, my education is costing me $18,000, but because I am required to be licensed, should I still have to pay for my education? If not, then neither should someone studying to become a doctor or a lawyer.

          If you have proven potential , your school should be paid in full. If a student wants to become a lawyer or a doctor and he or she does have the potential, but does have the potential for something else; then they would get funded for a career in their strengths. Ex: I score high in computer science and math and you score high in language and political science. Your scores in computer science and math are a lot lower then mine, and my scores are low in language and political science You want to become a computer programmer, and I want to work in politics. Both of us are in the middle to lower income households. It would be waste of both our talents and the governments money since both of us lack the skills for the jobs we want. Would it not make more sense for you to pursue a career in politics or languages, and me a career in computers?

If a student does come from a wealth house hold, he or she would not be eligible for education assistance, if your family is worth over three million dollars. The money should be generated from those who make more $600,000 a year.

So, you're a sociopath.

"I'm passive aggressive, so let him commit war crimes and let lots of people die so we can build a new system."

You're also naive as fuck. You think a new system gets created by you? Or the common people? Right. Donald Trump and his friends fill that vacuum quicker than you and I ever could.

(May 17, 2016 at 12:58 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: So, you're a sociopath.

"I'm passive aggressive, so let him commit war crimes and let lots of people die so we can build a new system."

You're also naive as fuck. You think a new system gets created by you? Or the common people? Right. Donald Trump and his friends fill that vacuum quicker than you and I ever could.

Maybe he thinks corporate persons would do a better job of filling the vacuum?

(May 17, 2016 at 2:15 am)Whateverist the White Wrote:

(May 17, 2016 at 12:58 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: So, you're a sociopath.

"I'm passive aggressive, so let him commit war crimes and let lots of people die so we can build a new system."

You're also naive as fuck. You think a new system gets created by you? Or the common people? Right. Donald Trump and his friends fill that vacuum quicker than you and I ever could.

Maybe he thinks corporate persons would do a better job of filling the vacuum?

        If all work out well the power structure would be filled by the people who wanted the old system replaced. The answer does not lye in corporate persons or the idea that money and rules the landscape. The choice lye's in the power of the people who defied a powerful government and won the battle. If Hillary was to be indited it would free up a chance to allow a less damaging changing of guard. I'm sure I'm not the only one hoping she does it indited and knocked of the election. I don't view what she did to be that serious, but I'm thinking that it be best for the country if she was sacrificed in a this battle, for the the greater good of the war. The best general we have to beat back Trump and bring the country up to modern standards is Sanders.

       I checked with my state voting laws, and my state does not allow voters to write in a candidate who is not on the ticket.

Nice on who voted staying home, you get a around of applause for sticking with your principles!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=barWV7RWkq0

I don't think I'm going to be one of the Bernie or Bust Boys. If Hillary gets the nomination that the democratic establishment is fighting so hard for, I think I will vote for her. I'm just really disappointed, because Bernie is someone I really want to vote for. He's not the lesser of two evils. He's a candidate I like.

(May 20, 2016 at 8:09 pm)Chad32 Wrote: I don't think I'm going to be one of the Bernie or Bust Boys. If Hillary gets the nomination that the democratic establishment is fighting so hard for, I think I will vote for her. I'm just really disappointed, because Bernie is someone I really want to vote for. He's not the lesser of two evils. He's a candidate I like.

         I know it's tough pill swallow, to think that she is best our society can produce. If we're after a female president there is so many other good choices, with her and Palin being the the bottom of barrel. He's the candidate a lot of Americans like, her connections won her a lot of the delegates and super delegates; which is so wrong cause she's far from the answer we need to the problems we have.

Yeah, if we were just going to give a woman a turn next, i'd rather it be Elizabeth, or Jill. Not Hillary.