RedDenver

I'll say it again: Medicare for All Everybody gets the same deal. Nobody is scamming the system. People who actually need the care get it.

That article is from 7/18/2008. That's before the Great Recession officially started in December of 2008. There was a congressional commission that looked into the causes of the GR and here's what they found:

I think it's more that Trump's numbers suggest he's going to lose and they want to get out ahead of that horse.

I see what you're saying, and if we're talking about what's canon in that universe, then I agree that we'd take the author's word for it. What you wrote in the last sentence is what I was thinking and trying to say in my previous posts.

(delete)

I'm doing my annual process of getting TV for the Husker games. Has Hulu Live allowed fast-forwarding of recorded shows yet? I'm basically down to Hulu Live (because my wife would watch some regular Hulu shows) and YouTube TV.

Of course it's my opinion, and your post is your opinion. What I'm saying/opining is that not all readers will get the same meaning from something they've read. You can argue that the writer specifically called out the race of a character, so a reader would misinterpret what the author wrote, that's a fine discussion to have. But in this case unless I am mistaken, the race of the character isn't specified, so the author left it up to the imagination of the reader whether he intended to or not.

No, it's up to the reader how to interpret and imagine what they are reading, especially if the author did not specifically write about the characters' race.

So what's your argument here? That readers can't disagree with the author about characters' race?

I had heard something similar but rather that the reader assumed the characters matched the reader's race unless stated otherwise.

So others don't have to click the link, Corcoran dropped 7 spots to #55

Has he even been in full pads yet?

Medicare-for-All addresses both problems. Everyone gets the same level of care, so there's no "welfare" to take advantage of. And it gives a whole bunch of leverage to negotiate with healthcare providers and drug companies.

Brilliant! Took me a minute to figure out what you were referring to.

What? You don't think the regulations put in place after the Great Depression kept banks for failing until the Great Recession? In particular, Glass-Steagall which was rolled back in 1999. Also, banks not only failed to make a profit but many would have gone bankrupt had the government not bailed them out just a decade ago.

Welcome to being a progressive! At least on one issue.

I'm sure it varies, but recent polling I've seen have Biden and Bernie tied at 50-42 against Trump.

You haven't been watching the Huskers in the B1G, have you?

That's a really good explanation. I'm certainly convinced by the logic of your argument.

Don't worry, capitalism is working on privatizing public water supplies. I'm sure nothing bad could happen from profiting off something that human survival depends on: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/towns-sell-their-public-water-systems--and-come-to-regret-it/2017/07/07/6ec5b8d6-4bc6-11e7-bc1b-fddbd8359dee_story.html

I thought about also putting TMart, but he didn't play for Riley.

I suspect Verduzco would have gotten a lot more out of him than the last staff. Armstrong was also a competitor and leader, which may have had a big impact last season.