GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Universal health care coverage for all with a cap.
If you want Cadillac coverage for every last known disease cure (make your list), then you can purchase supplemental on the private market. Basic things such as setting a broken arm should not have to run our nation bankrupt.

---

This is basically the system in Switzerland. All insurance carriers are private companies, but laws dictate that they MUST sell a specific basic health plan to all customers who want it, and the parameters of that plan are defined by the government. They are not allowed to make a profit on this plan. After that, they can upsell whatever they want on other "Cadillac" health insurance.

And as under Obamacare, all citizens are required to carry health insurance. Their system is more expensive than nationalized health care in similar countries, but costs are reasonable and the system is highly-ranked.

I could see something similar taking hold in the US, though our constitution makes the "citizen requirement" part more difficult. We also already have larger public plans in Medicare and Medicaid, so it would be hard to roll those back. I think that's why the idea of opening up Medicare for voluntary purchase by people under 65 is becoming the popular "moderate" idea among Democrats. (In other words, it's the "public option" Obama originally talked about in 2008.)

---

Will never happen. No matter how much bi-partisan it gets among the general public, Republicans will never let it happen. Democrats will never let any meaningful immigration reform pass that will be lit up as 'cruel'.

I predict no major legislation on key issue will ever be passed without one party have all 3 branches, including a super majority in the Senate. And the parties know this, which is why elections are so brutal and nasty. Win at all costs. Republican caught voting for any universal health care legislation that also shrinks the private insurance industry? Career over. Democrat caught voting for a 'wall'. Career over.

I hate it.

---

It will take time, but universal health care will happen, because anything else is unsustainable in the long run.

I think you underestimate the partisanship of Washington and the electorate.

I also don't think Democrats are going to be behind it as much as their base constituency. They will pay it lip service for sure during campaign season, and some of them truly believe in it, but I don't believe their heart will be as in to it when it comes down making it a legislative priority and getting it passed, kind of like how the Rep hearts weren't into demolishing Obamacare. Democrats are prisoners to insurance companies too.

GBear4Life said:

---

I think you underestimate the partisanship of Washington and the electorate.

I also don't think Democrats are going to be behind it as much as their base constituency. They will pay it lip service for sure during campaign season, and some of them truly believe in it, but I don't believe their heart will be as in to it when it comes down making it a legislative priority and getting it passed, kind of like how the Rep hearts weren't into demolishing Obamacare. Democrats are prisoners to insurance companies too.

---

My prediction is over the long term, not for what will happen in 2020. Parties and their positions can and will change, in response to what the voters want.

Only 13% of Americans think Attorney General William Barr's summary accurately described the Mueller Report

Or 87% don't believe the letter.

Another Bear said:

---

Only 13% of Americans think Attorney General William Barr's summary accurately described the Mueller Report

Or 87% don't believe the letter.

---

48%. Please read your links with a little more comprehension or, if that's not the case, try not to deliberately mislead.

oski003 said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Only 13% of Americans think Attorney General William Barr's summary accurately described the Mueller Report

Or 87% don't believe the letter.

---

48%.

---

Wrong.

GBear4Life said:

---

Democrats will never let any meaningful immigration reform pass that will be lit up as 'cruel'.

---

By the way, you put "cruel" in quotes here. I assume that's meant to signify that you think the claims of Trump's immigration policies being "cruel" are untrue?

Can you tell me how the Trump Administration and its policy of separating children from their parents at the border is not cruel? Was I wrong in describing it as such?

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Democrats will never let any meaningful immigration reform pass that will be lit up as 'cruel'.

---

By the way, you put "cruel" in quotes here. I assume that's meant to signify that you think the claims of Trump's immigration policies being "cruel" are untrue?

Can you tell me how the Trump Administration and its policy of separating children from their parents at the border is not cruel? Was I wrong in describing it as such?

---

No, when a parent is detained or arrested their kids aren't permitted to join them like it's a Sizzler. Unsurprisingly the MSM misrepresented it. It was a great issue to use as a platform for ignorant virtue signaling.

Quote:

---

The "zero-tolerance" policy he announced [in May 2018] sees adults who try to cross the border, many planning to seek asylum, being placed in custody and facing criminal prosecution for illegal entry.
As a result, hundreds of minors are now being housed in detention centres, and kept away from their parents.
Over a recent six-week period, nearly 2,000 children were separated from their parents after illegally crossing the border, figures released on [15 June 2018].
[Attorney General] Sessions said those entering the US irregularly would be criminally prosecuted, a change to a long-standing policy of charging most of those crossing for the first time with a misdemeanour offence.

---

In a perfect world we'd just give them and their kids a 1 way ticket back to where they came from, along with all the other immigration felons, but we know they'd be back at our doorstep again, so they have to charge them with something.

I'm also not surprised nobody wants to hold these mothers and fathers accountable for dragging their children along for a criminal trek across borders. If a mother is pulled from her home, the child is pulled in to protective custody. They do not do sleep overs with mommy in county jail.

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Democrats will never let any meaningful immigration reform pass that will be lit up as 'cruel'.

---

By the way, you put "cruel" in quotes here. I assume that's meant to signify that you think the claims of Trump's immigration policies being "cruel" are untrue?

Can you tell me how the Trump Administration and its policy of separating children from their parents at the border is not cruel? Was I wrong in describing it as such?

---

No, when a parent is detained or arrested their kids aren't permitted to join them like it's a Sizzler. Unsurprisingly the MSM misrepresented it. It was a great issue to use as a platform for ignorant virtue signaling.

Quote:

---

The "zero-tolerance" policy he announced [in May 2018] sees adults who try to cross the border, many planning to seek asylum, being placed in custody and facing criminal prosecution for illegal entry.
As a result, hundreds of minors are now being housed in detention centres, and kept away from their parents.
Over a recent six-week period, nearly 2,000 children were separated from their parents after illegally crossing the border, figures released on [15 June 2018].
[Attorney General] Sessions said those entering the US irregularly would be criminally prosecuted, a change to a long-standing policy of charging most of those crossing for the first time with a misdemeanour offence.

---

In a perfect world we'd just give them and their kids a 1 way ticket back to where they came from, along with all the other immigration felons, but we know they'd be back at our doorstep again, so they have to charge them with something.

I'm also not surprised nobody wants to hold these mothers and fathers accountable for dragging their children along for a criminal trek across borders. If a mother is pulled from her home, the child is pulled in to protective custody. They do not do sleep overs with mommy in county jail.

---

Wow.

You have come a long way from the happy loving person I assume you must have been as a child. Some of us still care about other people and havent let political trains of thought move us to dehumanized "logical positions."

You will never see your own lack of empathy and so it's up to the rest of us to see it and not become like you.

Hey, but I'm just Virtue Signalling. You go ahead and keep Monster Signalling.

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Democrats will never let any meaningful immigration reform pass that will be lit up as 'cruel'.

---

By the way, you put "cruel" in quotes here. I assume that's meant to signify that you think the claims of Trump's immigration policies being "cruel" are untrue?

Can you tell me how the Trump Administration and its policy of separating children from their parents at the border is not cruel? Was I wrong in describing it as such?

---

No, when a parent is detained or arrested their kids aren't permitted to join them like it's a Sizzler. Unsurprisingly the MSM misrepresented it. It was a great issue to use as a platform for ignorant virtue signaling.

Quote:

---

The "zero-tolerance" policy he announced [in May 2018] sees adults who try to cross the border, many planning to seek asylum, being placed in custody and facing criminal prosecution for illegal entry.
As a result, hundreds of minors are now being housed in detention centres, and kept away from their parents.
Over a recent six-week period, nearly 2,000 children were separated from their parents after illegally crossing the border, figures released on [15 June 2018].
[Attorney General] Sessions said those entering the US irregularly would be criminally prosecuted, a change to a long-standing policy of charging most of those crossing for the first time with a misdemeanour offence.

---

In a perfect world we'd just give them and their kids a 1 way ticket back to where they came from, along with all the other immigration felons, but we know they'd be back at our doorstep again, so they have to charge them with something.

I'm also not surprised nobody wants to hold these mothers and fathers accountable for dragging their children along for a criminal trek across borders. If a mother is pulled from her home, the child is pulled in to protective custody. They do not do sleep overs with mommy in county jail.

---

Hey GBear: What country did you immigrate from?

Stephen Miller, is that you?

Is it not a fact, that a citizen does not get to snuggle with child when they are detained/arrested. The child is given to relatives or taken temporarily by the govt.

Why would non-citizens get the privilege no citizen would have?

Why would we NOT send illegals charged with a felon back to where they came from.

There's nothing extreme or insensitive or unfair about it. You claim compassion for illegal felons, I advocate for fairness towards the American citizens, most of them minorities, by supporting stricter immigration policy.

Adolf Eichmann, architect of the Holocaust, is that you? Or is it the other Adolf?

GBear4Life said:

---

Why would we NOT send illegals charged with a felon back to where they came from.

---

Not sure if facts matter to you or not, but crossing the border isn't a felony and believe it or not applying for asylum at a port of entry is protected by law. These facts don't seem to matter to Trump or other radicalized white wingers either so you're not alone.

Yup to my understanding first offense is a misdemeanor. What a travesty.

GBear4Life said:

---

Yup to my understanding first offense is a misdemeanor. What a travesty.

---

In California, provided you don't injure anyone, you can't be convicted of felony DUI until your 4th conviction within the last 10 years. How do you like those apples?

GBear4Life said:

---

Yup to my understanding first offense is a misdemeanor. What a travesty.

---

That's right. And we don't take people's kids away from them for getting a speeding ticket. Unless they are brown people crossing the border, then apparently all bets are off in your view.

EVEN FOR FELONIES, yes, children have to go somewhere else when their parents are detained . . . but if the parents ask what happened to their kids the government will be able to tell them where they are. That was NOT the case for separated immigrant families under Trump. They still don't know where some of these kids went. Their policy and its execution was cruel, full stop.

GBear4Life said:

---

Yup to my understanding first offense is a misdemeanor. What a travesty.

---

You just go ahead and keep feeling like you are holding a moral, defensible position and that you are making really good points. You won't change and the rest of us won't listen. I'd rather have one of these "illegals" seeking asylum then more people who think like you. I don't want to live in a country of your values or with people who have the ability to justify themselves into cold-hearted policy antithetical to American history and core principles.

I hope the day comes when you realize the awful things you once believed and advocated. I suspect that you are too far down the path and will never turn back and will just keep convincing yourself that it is everyone else who has lost their way.

I wish you could see yourself from the outside. It's not pretty and it's not half as smart as you think it is.

And anyone who continues to use the term Virtue Signaling (pretty much the dumbest phrase I have heard in my political life), should be required to turn in both their citizen and self-identified "intellectual" credentials.

Another Bear said:

---

Adolf Eichmann, architect of the Holocaust, is that you? Or is it the other Adolf?

---

Stay Classy, AB

blungld said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Yup to my understanding first offense is a misdemeanor. What a travesty.

---

You just go ahead and keep feeling like you are holding a moral, defensible position and that you are making really good points. You won't change and the rest of us won't listen. I'd rather have one of these "illegals" seeking asylum then more people who think like you. I don't want to live in a country of your values or with people who have the ability to justify themselves into cold-hearted policy antithetical to American history and core principles.

I hope the day comes when you realize the awful things you once believed and advocated. I suspect that you are too far down the path and will never turn back and will just keep convincing yourself that it is everyone else who has lost their way.

I wish you could see yourself from the outside. It's not pretty and it's not half as smart as you think it is.

And anyone who continues to use the term Virtue Signaling (pretty much the dumbest phrase I have heard in my political life), should be required to turn in both their citizen and self-identified "intellectual" credentials.

---

cuck, SJW, etc. The vocabulary of a good liberal.

blungld said:

---

I wish you could see yourself from the outside. It's not pretty and it's not half as smart as you think it is.

---

The sadder part is that one or two other people keep giving a "star" to his posts, almost without fail. Come on, people.

sycasey said:

---

blungld said:

---

I wish you could see yourself from the outside. It's not pretty and it's not half as smart as you think it is.

---

The sadder part is that one or two other people keep giving a "star" to his posts, almost without fail. Come on, people.

---

There's a lot of hate in the world. I didn't realize it until Obama got elected. Now I've come to understand that there are some people for whom logic does not matter, who don't care about morality, and who just want to get theirs. So I'm through reasoning with people like that. All that matters is beating those people in elections and taking away their leaders and spokespeople. And in the meantime, **** those people, **** what they stand for, and **** doing anything other than deriding them.

Yogi Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

blungld said:

---

I wish you could see yourself from the outside. It's not pretty and it's not half as smart as you think it is.

---

The sadder part is that one or two other people keep giving a "star" to his posts, almost without fail. Come on, people.

---

There's a lot of hate in the world. I didn't realize it until Obama got elected. Now I've come to understand that there are some people for whom logic does not matter, who don't care about morality, and who just want to get theirs. So I'm through reasoning with people like that. All that matters is beating those people in elections and taking away their leaders and spokespeople. And in the meantime, **** those people, **** what they stand for, and **** doing anything other than deriding them.

---

It's an irony upon irony that I don't think they actually believe most of the things they say (The Card Says Moops). The positions they espouse do not have internal logic and do not adhere to the posters' espoused value system. So that means that the majority of arguments made or positions taken are nothing more than tribal alignment. The very people who call others snowflakes or virtue signalers or engaged in identity politics, are actually projecting their own behavior onto others. They are the fragile, paranoid, fearing, signalers who need to repeat a party line and "belong" even if it completely veers from values they have held their entire life and tears the country apart in their plain view.

The energy they put into rationalizing and defending things they KNOW are wrong is nothing short of pathetic and I can only hope they reach a place of shame in the coming years because if they don't they are worse than I even imagine.

They talk about the "experiment" and advantage of a president who runs the country like a company, but there is not a single CEO who would not have stepped down by now if they sowed the discord within their organization, lied to their constituency, profited illegally, and had appointed incompetent and criminal management throughout. By any standard political, corporate, or just plain decency this man should be out of office.

Ironical that those who find the term to be absurd are the ones who virtue signal almost as a reflex to positions they don't like -- and more importantly don't like to refute outside of specious appeals to "compassion", a well documented poor metric to judge public policy.

We don't do nice things for poor people out of the kindness of our hearts. We do it as a practical response to the Pareto distribution (80% of the wealth will generally be held by 20% of population) to maintain stability both socially and economically for all. We give folks sustenance by giving them a few nickels so that they don't band together and revolt against the system, so they don't rob a liquor store, so that they have some spending money to create additional demand of economic goods, so that they don't all go homeless and start to encroach on the streets and lawns of tax paying, contributing members of society. Those are the reasons why a social safety net is necessary, logical and moral. Not because a bunch of guys with too much privilege and free time needed to both stroke their ego and mitigate their own moral guilt over their lack of moral courage to actually act out their self proclaimed virtue onto the world.

Because there are no parameters of the "compassion" and "equity" doctrines. Feeble minded people who employ the compassion narrative fail to realize that it's an ideology that, by definition, has no bounds. Whatever improvement on compassion it demands, there is an infinite amount of grounds to continue demanding "more" compassion until the end of time, until you're now forced to compassionately give up everything you've got, until you've become a monster. It's an irrational, pathological ideology that is seductive and thus understandable. But it is demonstrably a poor premise by which to ground any political ideology or moral philosophy in.

Any post that begins with "Ironical" has already lost the debate.

blungld said:

---

It's an irony upon irony that I don't think they actually believe most of the things they say (The Card Says Moops). The positions they espouse do not have internal logic and do not adhere to the posters' espoused value system. So that means that the majority of arguments made or positions taken are nothing more than tribal alignment. The very people who call others snowflakes or virtue signalers or engaged in identity politics, are actually projecting their own behavior onto others. They are the fragile, paranoid, fearing, signalers who need to repeat a party line and "belong" even if it completely veers from values they have held their entire life and tears the country apart in their plain view.

---

Case in point: in the other thread GBear is already now arguing "This family separation stuff shouldn't be happening; I agree."

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/88082/replies/1608753

Because I guess now it serves his purpose to say that and then troll the libs with comments about Nancy Pelosi and you and me not letting poor immigrants live in our houses. The Card Says Moops!

The affirmation seeking echo chamber here is strong. When grown men are strawmanning while avoiding the content of the position, it's no wonder...

But in the name of virtue, I'd like to invoke everybody's compassion.

GBear4Life said:

---

The affirmation seeking echo chamber here is strong. When grown men are strawmanning while avoiding the content of the position, it's no wonder...

But in the name of virtue, I'd like to invoke everybody's compassion.

---

Look who's equivocating now.

okaydo said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Democrats will never let any meaningful immigration reform pass that will be lit up as 'cruel'.

---

By the way, you put "cruel" in quotes here. I assume that's meant to signify that you think the claims of Trump's immigration policies being "cruel" are untrue?

Can you tell me how the Trump Administration and its policy of separating children from their parents at the border is not cruel? Was I wrong in describing it as such?

---

No, when a parent is detained or arrested their kids aren't permitted to join them like it's a Sizzler. Unsurprisingly the MSM misrepresented it. It was a great issue to use as a platform for ignorant virtue signaling.

Quote:

---

The "zero-tolerance" policy he announced [in May 2018] sees adults who try to cross the border, many planning to seek asylum, being placed in custody and facing criminal prosecution for illegal entry.
As a result, hundreds of minors are now being housed in detention centres, and kept away from their parents.
Over a recent six-week period, nearly 2,000 children were separated from their parents after illegally crossing the border, figures released on [15 June 2018].
[Attorney General] Sessions said those entering the US irregularly would be criminally prosecuted, a change to a long-standing policy of charging most of those crossing for the first time with a misdemeanour offence.

---

In a perfect world we'd just give them and their kids a 1 way ticket back to where they came from, along with all the other immigration felons, but we know they'd be back at our doorstep again, so they have to charge them with something.

I'm also not surprised nobody wants to hold these mothers and fathers accountable for dragging their children along for a criminal trek across borders. If a mother is pulled from her home, the child is pulled in to protective custody. They do not do sleep overs with mommy in county jail.

---

Hey GBear: What country did you immigrate from?

---

Why do yo ask?

GBear4Life said:

---

Ironical that those who find the term to be absurd are the ones who virtue signal almost as a reflex to positions they don't like -- and more importantly don't like to refute outside of specious appeals to "compassion", a well documented poor metric to judge public policy.

We don't do nice things for poor people out of the kindness of our hearts. We do it as a practical response to the Pareto distribution (80% of the wealth will generally be held by 20% of population) to maintain stability both socially and economically for all. We give folks sustenance by giving them a few nickels so that they don't band together and revolt against the system, so they don't rob a liquor store, so that they have some spending money to create additional demand of economic goods, so that they don't all go homeless and start to encroach on the streets and lawns of tax paying, contributing members of society. Those are the reasons why a social safety net is necessary, logical and moral. Not because a bunch of guys with too much privilege and free time needed to both stroke their ego and mitigate their own moral guilt over their lack of moral courage to actually act out their self proclaimed virtue onto the world.

Because there are no parameters of the "compassion" and "equity" doctrines. Feeble minded people who employ the compassion narrative fail to realize that it's an ideology that, by definition, has no bounds. Whatever improvement on compassion it demands, there is an infinite amount of grounds to continue demanding "more" compassion until the end of time, until you're now forced to compassionately give up everything you've got, until you've become a monster. It's an irrational, pathological ideology that is seductive and thus understandable. But it is demonstrably a poor premise by which to ground any political ideology or moral philosophy in.

---

Let me simplify this for you:
a) opposing conservative opinion DOES NOT EQUAL virtue signal
b) use of term virtue signal EQUALS conservative virtue signal

blungld said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Ironical that those who find the term to be absurd are the ones who virtue signal almost as a reflex to positions they don't like -- and more importantly don't like to refute outside of specious appeals to "compassion", a well documented poor metric to judge public policy.

We don't do nice things for poor people out of the kindness of our hearts. We do it as a practical response to the Pareto distribution (80% of the wealth will generally be held by 20% of population) to maintain stability both socially and economically for all. We give folks sustenance by giving them a few nickels so that they don't band together and revolt against the system, so they don't rob a liquor store, so that they have some spending money to create additional demand of economic goods, so that they don't all go homeless and start to encroach on the streets and lawns of tax paying, contributing members of society. Those are the reasons why a social safety net is necessary, logical and moral. Not because a bunch of guys with too much privilege and free time needed to both stroke their ego and mitigate their own moral guilt over their lack of moral courage to actually act out their self proclaimed virtue onto the world.

Because there are no parameters of the "compassion" and "equity" doctrines. Feeble minded people who employ the compassion narrative fail to realize that it's an ideology that, by definition, has no bounds. Whatever improvement on compassion it demands, there is an infinite amount of grounds to continue demanding "more" compassion until the end of time, until you're now forced to compassionately give up everything you've got, until you've become a monster. It's an irrational, pathological ideology that is seductive and thus understandable. But it is demonstrably a poor premise by which to ground any political ideology or moral philosophy in.

---

Let me simplify this for you:
opposing conservative opinion virtue signal
use of term virtue signal = conservative virtue signal

---

Logic fail: citing an observation = employing the observed behavior. Brilliant.

..And you addressed none of the content. Shocker.

GBear4Life said:

---

..And you addressed none of the content. Shocker.

---

LOL. As if you ever actually address anyone else's content.