kirkisartist

Dexter fucked all three. He was asking Michael C Hall.

They have smaller countries, and more resources to each citizen. They don't get involved with wars. Deregulation has also given them economic booms. Their government makes investments that pay off as well. They can afford welfare states since they are so tightly managed.

The US has 50 states to cover. Our central govt can't manage all of them correctly. Our state governments have a hard enough time managing themselves. If we took the approach of europe, each state would have to manage itself. I think states should be more creative about healthcare and education to figure out what's right for them as long as they stay square with the constitution. I think some states could be socialist, some could get away with something close to anarchy.

Walmart doesn't want to cut food stamps. That's their bread and butter. Where do you think welfare is mostly spent?

Hi Dr. President, I'm a life long Liberal but may be voting republican for the first time thanks to you. Your Bowie State lecture won me over. But there are two red flags that may be deal breakers.

1 Our current political system is structurally corrupt and dysfunctional, due to campaign finance, which requires politicians to spend more time begging lobbyists for bribes rather than doing their job. What if anything do you plan to do to solve this problem?

2 One form of government tyranny is in our immigration system. We have constitution free zones and internment camps which should give any liberty lover nightmares. As I understand you plan on cranking up enforcement, but how? Are you going to send armed gunmen to round up families and ship them off, or are you talking about cranking up government bureaucracy to push them further into the shadows?

Either way, you have been a consistent voice of reason since you've been in the senate. I'm rooting for you to emerge from the clown car knife fight victorious. You are the GOP's best hope for defeating Hillary.

When I went to CC there were some logistical problems. The pre-requisite courses were always booked solid with a backlogged wait list. Many of the profs were very talented and some weren't qualified at all.

It's not that the school was underfunded, it's that there was a limited pool of talent space and time.

How would this program compensate for the logistical issues that will come once tuition is free? And the added problem of removing tuition from funding?