• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About bearrock

  • Rank
    The Special Teams Ace
  • Birthday 11/17/1980

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Redskins Fan Since
    seems like forever
  • Favorite Redskin
    Darrell Green
  • Not a Skins Fan? Tell us YOUR team:
    WHAT!!!!!! Blasphemy
  • Location
    Fairfax VA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The people who opt for medicare before 65 will have to pay their premiums for medicare. Proponents of the plan are saying that when medicare covers older population for about the same money per person as private insurance uses to cover those below 65, the younger people in medicare will be cheaper to cover compared to private insurance due to inherent advantage medicare has in price negotiation, administrative overhead, and non-profit nature of the program. The results of medicare spending on 65 and above vs private insurance spending on 65 and below lends support to that. Then presumably, individuals will likely obtain supplemental medicare insurance as older people do now. By passing on the savings to the individuals who opt to sign up for medicare, they will likely pay lower premiums than they currently pay to private insurance, even after supplemental plan is factored in. It's a different version of the public option plan, except instead of building a program from the ground up, they just piggyback on to an existing program.
  2. Sanders' vote on the 2007 immigration bill adds fuel to the fire on my trepidation about him. He voted against it because the unions were split, which is fine. That was his core audience. And the guest worker program was a compromise to the money wing of the GOP to garner their support, which had a good chance of blowing up somewhere down the road. But then to turn it around and make it an absolute moral issue, pulling that line about slavery. So Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama supported a slavery bill? It's a compromise bill and in a country of diametrically opposed political spectrum, it often takes a compromise bill when it comes to huge complex problems.
  3. Bloomberg debate team didn't see this coming a mile away? And Klobuchar should just say I had a brain freeze and move on.
  4. Re: Disappointment if wins pool Gabbard at 42%. Lol. Surprised it's not higher. If the floor is 17%, I'm gonna eyeball the Bernie only supporters at 10-15%. Interesting evolution of that poll would be what percentage would not vote for the nominee if "X" won the primary. Cause i would be disappointed with a lot of those choices, but still vote for them.
  5. How does early voting work in caucus? Is each day like a mini-caucus? I thought the entire point of a caucus system was the movement of votes after the initial round. Or is that an Iowa only thing?
  6. @Monk4thaHALL Thank you for the more detailed explanation. I may not agree with all of your points (as I understand them), but thank you for taking the time to expound on it more. Definitely food for thought there.
  7. Would you mind pretending that I'm stupid (hell, no pretending needed) and explain what you mean? I don't think we really use the term bros with some inherent connection to people of color anymore. Or is that not even what you're talking about? (See above re me=stupid)
  8. Allow importation of drugs. Simple solution.
  9. Obviously, every democrat thinks giving the reins to a reality star was a terrible idea and has been an abject disaster.
  10. Are you talking about MFA or something else? Because on most of the issues Sanders is addressing, no one disputes the problems and need for a new solution. Comfortable with continuing exploitation? So basically, unless the proposed solution is as earth shattering as Sanders', they are "comfortable with continuing exploitation"? Will Bernie be "comfortable with continuing exploitation" if he becomes POTUS and signs off on a compromise bill? If it's not my way or the highway and there is some specific defect with the more moderate proposals, then Sanders need to point out what specifically are disqualifying about those proposals. Instead, he's saying if my plan could pass and if all my assumptions are proven true, and if the vague details are expertly filled, then my plan is superior. Well no **** Sherlock. But given that your plan will not pass, given that we don't know whether your assumptions are true, and given that there are still critical vague details, tell us what superior solution exists. AOC seems ready to settle for the public option as a compromise plan. So is Klobuchar "comfortable with continuing exploitation" when she advocates for a public option? Or Americans could say the specifics of the Sanders plan sucks. We'll just leave things the way they are. Build the wall and Mexico will pay for it. Well, build the wall and we'll pay for it. Well, build some wall and we'll pay for it. So Sanders is just engaging in Trumpian negotiation instead of being plain and honest with the American public? Fine. Tout the Sanders MFA as the ultimate goal. Given the high likelihood of it never passing, give me a preview as to what compromise you'll find acceptable instead of leaving me in the dark before pulling that lever. Not everything wealthy is evil. That's an ad hominem attack without looking at the policy. That's lazy smearing by association. I want real change too. Pie in the sky changes don't count. I'll say what said before. If the changes you need require a political revolution, we'll call you after the revolution is over. Because it's a hard pass on a POTUS who will sit in the oval office for 4 years waiting for that perfect bill to come across their desk. If that's not the case, let's talk about what compromises we are talking about. Every idea and support should be evaluated on merits. Rich people can have the right idea as well as anyone else. Skepticism? Perhaps warranted. Purity test? No way. Edited after first reply (either I missed this part when I replied, or the section got added after): I don't fault anyone for the aspirations. Warren is my top 2 and her aspirations are just as pie in the sky as anyone out there. I don't fault Sanders for pushing his proposals either. But don't paint people who discuss compromise solutions as somehow morally corrupt. And when people point out how unlikely your proposal is to pass, either discuss your fall back plan or discuss why in your opinion, the proposal has a good chance of passing. And tell us what you plan to do if you are given a compromise proposal by Congress.
  11. Shouldn't we all have a problem with that? I'm not going to be the person who tells a on the fence moderate to vote for Warren despite thinking her ideas are trash and thinks they are worse than four more years of Trump because chances are they will never come to pass. If you think a candidate's proposals are worse than Trump's second term, don't vote for the candidate. I also don't have as a big a problem with candidates arguing that their pie in the sky idea is better than the other pie in the sky idea. That's the nature of campaigning, though a monumental waste of time. Where I have the biggest problem is someone posing a will never pass policy proposal as a purity test against those advocating for a compromise solution, fully knowing it will not pass and that the candidate will have to compromise if they ever become POTUS. That's craven, bold faced deceit.
  12. Then it is totally disingenuous for him and his supporters to turn Dem primary into an ideological purity test.
  13. Lot of people think the "rigged" DNC nomination process in 2016 hurt moderate Dems and helped Sanders. I actually wish the dumbass tweets are Russian bots instead of Sanders supporters because the only thing that is severely testing my resolution to vote for anyone against Trump is sheer idiocy of the Bernie Bros. Tell me. Given that none of Sanders' major policy proposals have a snowball's chance in hell of passing in the next four years, what will President Sanders do when Congress (joined by a healthy contingent of Dems) slams the door in his face? Was AOC trying to soften the ground for an eventual capitulation by the Democratic Socialist Party? Or are we gonna be stuck for four years of Uncle Bernie ranting about how he can't get anything done because the political system is rigged?
  14. At least in Virginia, kids under the age of 14 cannot be admitted in a psych facility without the parent or guardian's consent. Now if the situation clearly calls for it and parents are refusing, CPS would have to petition for emergency guardianship or TDO so that the decision gets taken out of the parents' hands. But that at least means the case goes before a (likely a very skeptical) judge. Here, they said the child was calm by the time she was being escorted out. Unless we are talking about habitual offenses with the parents clearly not doing anything to help the situation, I doubt a judge will sign off on the commitment. Heck, even then, foster care would be the more likely option in that scenario (most likely do CPS parental intervention services first).