“This software update makes it so that even if they try to plug that USB port in, it’s not going to disable the ignition immobilizer,” Emily Falecki said. “It’s going to keep that intact and it is going to sound the factory alarm.”
Falecki said on Friday that part of this upgrade requires Kia owners to lock their cars with a key fob.
If you don’t use the key fob to lock your vehicle, the upgrade is useless.
So this is a software “fix” for a hardware problem. WTF Kia…
I found that most cars with a button on the outside of the door to lock behave this way. Pushing that button only locks the doors. You have to press the button on the fob to actually arm the car.
I don’t see this as Kia’s fault at all. These cars were bare basement bottom of the line cars. They included very limited security systems. It is not a responsibility of the manufacturer to provide any level of security or to help you when your shit is stolen.
No, it isnt. That would just drive up the cost and make it even more unaffordable. They made important cars that cater to a specific demographic, and it was a complete non-issue before it became a TikTok trend.
The thing is, the exact same models sold in Canada have immobilizers installed in them as standard. And it costs just a couple of bucks per car for them to do that. I guess your point is kinda valid in the sense that because they weren’t required by law to do it in the US, they didn’t. While they didn’t break any laws, it’s still a dumb thing to do to penny pinch. All their 2023 models and up now have immobilizers on them with prices still within their class range, so it’s not like they couldn’t do it.
Also, they aren’t exactly bottom of the barrel anymore nowadays and their cars are sold at a premium.
Helen, why were immobilizers standard in just about every other manufacturer’s vehicles? Some things are not the burden of the consumer - you should not need to be an expert in your doctors provided care or in the additives in your toothpaste. Do you know why? because even if you arrogantly thought you had a grasp on it, you’d likely be doing a shit job, because you’re not a doctor or a chemical engineer. The government should have regulated this as a standard need, but short of that, this is was much of a standard as you can have (especially in Europe).
It’s a great example though of how enough companies to make an impact WILL NOT do the right thing unless it is mandated. Hyundai was the test balloon and if they got away with it, others would have followed. Only good news arid this is that the PR shit show Hyundai bought for themselves will scare off other manufacturer’s from shedding those $1.24 worth of parts from their BOM for another few years at least.
why were immobilizers standard in just about every other manufacturer’s vehicles?
They aren’t. They’re offered in many cars to prevent theft. 🤯
Some things are not the burden of the consumer
Lots of things are not anyone’s burden. Like immobilizers. I mean maybe one day UNICEF will enter the immobilization industry and we can all have them for free. Until then, it costs someone money. If the consumer wants to pay for it, they can choose 1 of hundreds of other vehicles. If they don’t, that is their choice also. It’s not the manufacturer’s burden.
you should not need to be an expert in your doctors provided care or in the additives in your toothpaste.
And you don’t have to be. That’s why there are doctors and dentists. You do still maintain a responsibility of educating yourself on some basic level and maintaining your personal health. Not really sure what your point was there.
Immobilisers have been mandatory in all new cars sold in Germany since 1 January 1998, in the United Kingdom since 1 October 1998, in Finland since 1998, in Australia since 2001 and in Canada since 2007.
Unfortunately in the good old US of A that is somehow not the case, but it remains a fact that it is a bare minimum requirement for vehicle security. You will not purchase a vehicle in America that is not a Kia that does not have an immobilizer.
The fact that they are, factually, standard on every other manufacturer’s vehicles, like you want to insist they aren’t. You’re clearly refusing to understand the words being communicated to you so, good luck in life I guess, this conversation is done.
You can buy an add-on immobilizer on Amazon or eBay for $20. The cost to a car company to build this into the computer in the factory should be under $10. Virtually every other car company has used them by default in everything since the mid 1990s.
Remember how many German anti-vaxxer emmigrated to Columbia (or Paraguay?) where they had to send their children to school and what happened first day they vaccinated them without asking the parents 😄😄😄😄
Ignoring how fucked up it is to take pleasure in people's deaths, let me remind you that there are some people, even in blue states, that cannot receive various vaccinations due to health risks and thus are entirely reliant on herd immunity.
As one of those high earners, yes. Absolutely. I’d even say do it like Medicare and above a certain income you pay a slightly higher rate that normal too.
Just for those unaware - the social security pay-in is a percentage of your income, but the maximum amount of your income subject to social security withholding is capped at a fixed level that increases annually. The last time I looked, the cutoff was somewhere around $138k. So if your cumulative income for the year hits $138k in, say, June, you are no longer subject to SS withholding and your weekly paycheck goes up by a couple of hundred dollars or so as a result. Most people don’t hit this amount, but enough do that were the cap eliminated, it would increase solvency and possibly allow for an increase in payouts.
On the flip side, your payout from social security is proportional to what your pay in was. It’s still capped, and it’s not really enough to live on. Those who hit the cap typically have multiple other sources of savings for retirement and could easily contribute more to the national program.
Yes. That is what I said. I think it’s not a valid justification.
By way of analogy, let’s say we move to a point of tuition-free public college, which I also support. My taxes which go to support those colleges would be far higher than those of most people, but my kids, were I to have any, would receive the exact same benefit from a financial standpoint as people whose taxes contributed far less to none.
My property taxes are somewhere around $25k per year. They go largely to support a public school system which, as a person without children, I receive zero direct benefit from. Should I get a lower property tax because I am a person without kids despite having a higher income and higher valued property? Or should I be taxed relative to my ability to support the community? Should a family that makes a quarter of what I do but have four kids pay more than me?
This doesn’t equate, if you get a proportion based on what you’ve put in, your kids would get a larger amount vs the poorer family. Assuming we’re equating to SS.
Would you be happy if you put in 30k every year for your life and you’re only getting 15k back every year during retirement?
Should I get a lower property tax because I am a person without kids despite having a higher income and higher valued property? Or should I be taxed relative to my ability to support the community? Should a family that makes a quarter of what I do but have four kids pay more than me?
Personally I think that the family of 4 that makes a quarter should probably not be having kids… it’s not good for the kid or the parent to be in that situation. I know because that was my childhood. Shit left quite a few scars well into adulthood.
That’s not what they’re saying. They’re arguing to remove the contribution cap but not the payout cap, similar to various other public services: rich people pay way more in taxes for public schools despite receiving approximately the same benefits. It’s a form of wealth redistribution, and conveniently would solve the social security funding issue.
I’m sorry but this disproportionately affects W2 workers who live in HCOL areas. I’ve paid into social security since I started working in HS. I’m now a 34 year old, and am expecting nothing during my retirement years as I’ve been told. Naturally I’m saving up with a 401k and Roth IRA, and you’re saying it’s okay to drain more from me because I am planning on there being nothing left for me?
I don’t agree with that. Why can’t we do a wealth tax first and see where we are, why must we hit W2 folks over the head every time.
Yes, it’s ok to take more from you because it’s how social security can be offered to everyone, including you.
You say you’re putting money away into retirement because you don’t think social security will be there. Then you say you don’t want to help make social security there for everyone. The whole point is that if millions of people like you were able to add a little more to the bucket, then it would make life better for everyone.
This isn’t increasing taxes to start a war, or to bail out billionaires, this is real, tangible benefits to every citizen.
No it won’t, the ratio of retirees to the workforce is getting higher and higher because of all the shit that this fucked up country does to burden the current generation for all the problems caused by the boomers. I’d much rather let the boomers experience the finding out phase after they’ve been fucking around so much.
What’s worse is that the life expectancy of those boomers is going to add unsustainable strain to the system. As society progresses you’ll eventually have less births, which means this problem might be getting even worse in the future. The only way it would be sustainable is that you have constant growth in both people and the economy. That’s literally not possible.
Yes, it’s ok to take more from you because it’s how social security can be offered to everyone, including you.
I’d much rather take my chances, take whatever you’ve taken from me I don’t want it back, but let me do my own investments and leave me with more disposable income. Fix the government before dumping more tax money into the money pit. I’ll happily vote for the guy who will try.
I don’t like the fucker either, but you don’t have to be a libertarian to see that our government isn’t working right now. We need to find a way to fix our government in such a manner that bad faith actors cannot survive in it. Otherwise we’re just throwing money at them which they can then use to enrich their friends.
Yeah, it disproportionately affects W2 workers making over 140k per year or so. Thats fine. That’s the way things are supposed to be.
It’s not hitting “W2 folks” to extend withholding beyond $140k. It’s doing the appropriate thing and not giving them a free ride. If you want to additionally hit up the people who are living off of the various ways you can monetize wealth, that’s fine too. I’m in favor of a wealth tax. I think that’s also fair. I think Warren proposed a 2% tax on holdings over $4M. I support that. That’s still different than SS withholding.
Let’s say you’re making a whopping $150k. That means that you’ll pay (and I am probably overestimating) a few hundred dollars a year into the SS fund. It’s not a noticeable amount, whether you live in a HCOL area or not. It’s a nice dinner, stretched out over 365 days worth of payments.
It’s a trivial amount of money for an individual, which when spread over the population of the country, can make the difference to the majority of the population. I’m very much down with that.
I don’t want ‘fair’, I fucking want payback for 30 years of the rich cratering the economy for everyone else so they can get their third solid gold yacht.
Gift cards are terrible gifts and I wish people would stop giving them. Just give them straight cash money to spend on whatever they want, an item they actually could use, or even better, nothing at all if they don’t actually need it.
I disagree, but only to the extent that you know the person well enough to know they’ll use it or they explicitly ask you for it. To me, gift cards are a way to alleviate the paralysis of choice and guilt for spending money in certain ways. It’s like “I know you couldn’t mentally justify spending a $100 bill on a high quality set of sheets, so I’m giving you money specifically earmarked for that purpose.”
It’s also sometimes handy if you want to give someone money for everyday needs and know they’d feel guilty or embarrassed about receiving money directly. A gift card for a store you know they go to a lot can be a fairly tasteful gift. Again, though, it’s only worth it if you know they’ll actually use it.
And don’t get those prepaid general purpose gift cards, those things are straight up scams.
and know they’d feel guilty or embarrassed about receiving money directly
That’s what I never understood about the taboo of cash as gifts. Whats weirder to me is it’s pretty common to get straight cash money as a gift for graduating from highschool, but not for christmas or birthdays?
I personally dislike feeling the obligation to buy something from a specific store because of the gift cards. Getting cash (or not spending money on gifts) gives me more flexibility. And if I ever need the cash I don’t feel obligated to lose money in a transaction having to sell some item off. Whether it be the item I bought with the gift card, or some other item I bought so I can keep that other item.
I second this. A 100 dollar bill just gets saved in my safe. However, if I’m given something like an Amazon gift card, I have zero reason to not spend it.
Granted, the things I would want are very particular and normally on the expensive side, so I would rather have people give me a bit of money to go towards said things.
It’s an interest-free loan to a giant corporation in return for obliging someone to keep it somewhere safe, and remember to take it with them when they want to spend it, with no choice as to where to spend it, and a high chance that they never will get around to spending it.
I explicitly ask for gift cards, because the last thing I need cluttering up my house are random gifts that people got me. I’ve gotten to the point where I don’t really care for surprise gifts, and I feel like a jerk telling people exactly what to get me. So I just ask for gift cards, and I use the money to buy my own gifts.
My wife and I don’t really buy each other gifts anymore. We just buy ourselves something we want and say, “This is my Christmas gift from you!” Repeat for birthdays, etc. Not having any expectations of buying/exchanging gifts is liberating for us.
Same, I’d rather have people help me subsidize big purchases with gift cards than buy me stuff I don’t need or want. The in-laws especially hate giving gift cards so for years the wife and I tell them we just don’t want anything for the holidays. This year they finally caved and sent us some gift cards. I’d rather have to pay $50 less for an expensive tool/toy than have $50 worth of even more junk cluttering up my house
My wife and I don’t really buy each other gifts anymore. We just buy ourselves something we want and say, “This is my Christmas gift from you!” Repeat for birthdays, etc.
This is what I prefer. Instead of getting a gift card and feeling obliged to buy something from X retailer. Sometimes I just don’t want to buy something from them. Whether it’s cheaper elsewhere, or I just don’t trust them for that item so I either have to pay more just to use the gift card, or risk getting a knockoff.
With straight cash money I can spend it whenever I want, on whatever I want, wherever I want.
I agree. I always try to give cash over gift cards. Much more flexible and does not expire.
Gift cards are a hassle because you have to keep careful track of them and be sure you have them when going to that exact business. Cash just goes with your cash.
DO YOU WORSHIP SATAN?
No, nor do we believe in the existence of Satan or the supernatural. The Satanic Temple believes that religion can, and should, be divorced from superstition. As such, we do not promote a belief in a personal Satan. To embrace the name Satan is to embrace rational inquiry removed from supernaturalism and archaic tradition-based superstitions. Satanists should actively work to hone critical thinking and exercise reasonable agnosticism in all things. Our beliefs must be malleable to the best current scientific understandings of the material world — never the reverse.
Data from Brownsville ISD seen by The Observer showed its officers made 3,102 student arrests between May 2021 and Nov. 2023. Nearly 60% of those were on felony charges and 76 of those kids were in elementary school.
What the everliving fuck is wrong with these people?
Fucking Christ, and people ask why that shit should be forbidden???
You’re so used to reading bullshit, arm length ingredients lists that the homeopathy industry’s bullshit “ingredients” list is ALL water and you don’t realize it.
Each of the “30c” or above is PURE WATER. The whole bottle is pure water!
At 4c the average distribution of announced ingredients to water is 10 parts per billion of “active” molecules. At 12c you get an average of 0.6 molecule per litter.you most likely have way less than a hundred molecules per billion. That’s pure water.
I’m not saying that it doesn’t work – I’m saying that instead of paying idk what price for it you could just use distilled or even tap water and get the same results, and not fund a bunch of absolute crooks.
Edit: oh and each of the “active” ingredients is not actually active. It’s just a bunch of pseudoscientific bullshit that have been given the chance, thousands of times, to prove its efficiency, and NEVER managed to. Not explaining how they would somehow do it, no, just prove that what they’re offering is in any way better than placebo. They’ve always been entirely incapable of proving it.
Notice the ‘c’ and ‘x’ designations after each ingredient. Those aren’t standard amounts like ml or mg, they designate the amounts of dilution: x means 10 and c means 100. The number is also not an amount, but the number of succussions, which means the times it was shaken before the next dilution.
So 6c means the ingredient was diluted 6:1, shaken, then diluted 6:1 again and shaken again, 100 times.
Homeopathy is the belief that water has memory, and you can activate that memory by diluting an ingredient with water, shaking it, then diluting it again and shaking tens or hundreds of times. By the end of the process, there should be nearly zero molecules of the active ingredient left, but the water will ‘remember’ the ingredients that are now gone.
I’m sorry to say none of the ingredients in the list on that label are actually in that product.
eta: Also, the ingredients are chosen because they cause a symptom the user is experiencing, not because they help cure or lessen a symptom. So they may include pepper for a cold because pepper makes you sneeze, not because it helps with sneezing. This they call ‘like cures like’. So many ingredients in the list will be ineffective, harmful, or fatal if any amount was still in there.
Maybe but that would involve us trusting the government.
I don’t think it should have ever been a crime to smoke a joint I also don’t think it should be a crime to eat a sugar cube that someone put three drops of water on it.
Legislators and regulators are targeting producers and not consumers.
The same way the drug war was waged yes? How did that work for us?
Would you rather trust companies driven entirely by profit over the government?
False dilemma. Now are you willing to put down money right now that the government will never try to ban abortion pills? If you aren’t I must conclude that you are the one that doesn’t trust the government. You know the same government that fought a war against cannabis users for 9 decades.
It’s a stupid fucking excuse. If the man’s been on this earth hurting people and spreading bullshit for 80 years, why should I feel any sympathy for his age? These vile assholes don’t deserve peace, they shouldn’t be allowed to just get away with it because they’ve been ruining lives for long enough.
Brandon Clay Dotson was found dead at Ventress Correctional Facility on November 16. It wasn’t immediately clear what charge Dotson was serving time for.
It wasn’t immediately clear what charge Dotson was serving time for.
We don’t know what he did, but he died in prison over it.
This is going to be such a culture shift. Kids today are going to grow up in a world where anyone can make any image or video of any person at any time. I have no idea how this will impact sexual health and development or if really it will even be a bad thing. It could lead to more openness and freedom, kind of like growing up with the Internet did. It could also have some really harmful unexpected consequences…kinda like how growing up with the Internet did…
It’s teaching kids to keep all of their photos private, like we always should have done from the beginning. Your face, your likeness, your privacy, there are malicious and greedy people out there that want what you have.
I think even that is ultimately a lost cause. There are cameras everywhere and there’s getting to be more. Facebook is trying to get us all used to having cameras right on our face at all times. Even if you could completely block your face from every camera, how long until the AI equivalent of a police sketch artist just remakes your face from someone’s description?
I could easily imagine a simple brain/computer interface - not even requiring an implant, just one of those helmet or headband things - where you are looking at a screen while thinking about a person that you remember. The AI starts tweaking the image on the screen and monitoring how closely your brain is registering a "match" to the image you're thinking of, until eventually it's spot on.
Won't guarantee that you remembered perfectly, of course. But no camera required for something like this.
The difference is the source. If someone pulls a screen grab of you from a Target security camera and uses AI to make porn, the employee has a problem because Target has a problem. If you take photos of yourself at the beach and share them via Facebook, then anyone anywhere can end up with that photo and use it for almost anything with no problem because you took it and shared it publicly.
Hopefully this gets people to realize how much they are giving up by sharing via Facebook, and Instagram, and Xitter, and TicTac or whatever. If you want to be social media famous, be famous. But fame comes at a price.
I feel the same way about biometrics. When I tell friends, family, and coworkers about this, they look at me like I’m crazy. You can change your password. You can’t change your retinal pattern, fingerprint, etc.
And I don’t care how much someone tries to convince me on how securely it’s stored inside the phone hardware or the cloud. You are trusting every single coder and engineer who has a hand in designing and maintaining these things. Not to mention hackers who always find a way to breach.
I think it’s only a matter of time, if it hasn’t happened already. When you scan your bio-metric data (fingerprint or whatever) it gets stored somewhere as a pattern of numbers. A clever and talented bad actor could, in theory, recreate or spoof that pattern of numbers in a variety of different ways. Hackers are very good at finding exploits that application coders never thought of. We have all sorts of virtual devices that emulate physical devices. It stands to reason that “virtual fingerprints” could easily be a thing.
Also, bio-metrics are “super easy and convenient” which has a tendency to make people get a little too apathetic / casual about security. And by people I mean everyone involved from the user up through all the layers of engineers and testers to the C-suite.
It’s an over-arching problem with security in general. Good security is both inconvenient and expensive. People want profits and convenience.
I’m going to hold off on using my bio-metrics for as long as I can. Though I can imagine a future where that is no longer possible, unfortunately
I’ve never thought about this before. One thing I’m curious to hear from your perspective is the idea of a single password being irrelevant. I’ve had my credit card info stolen before and it’s never been a concern of not being able to convince my bank it wasn’t me, the amount of corroboratating evidence is just overwhelming. In a world where a single point of failure ,such as a biometric, is irrelevant simply because the amount of information to convincingly recreate a person is more trouble than it’s worth. Additionally I’ve never had a biometric be the last line of defense, somewhere along the line a password is always required.
Idk love to hear thoughts on this admittedly am low key drunk so maybe am saying dumb stuff
I have to agree with you. My biggest concern is not if they have my fingerprint because there isn’t really much they can do with it. What I am concerned about is how much data they gather (and not just about be, for the same reason, but from groups) and what they can do with it to alter my world view.
I agree but I personally just assume every techgiant knows everything about me and not to trust anything I see through a screen without vetting it. I’m younger than Google so it’s possible they knew about me before I was even born, whats the point in trying to hide myself from an entity that doesn’t care about me but already knows more about me than everyone in my life possibly excluding myself.
This is such a weird mentality and so bizarre that it’s common within a certain set of people. You’re going to hide in a darkened room refusing to interact with the world and not sharing anything because you’re scared someone will make an image of you?
Oh gosh a greedy person stole my likeness because they wanted what I have! What ever will I do?!?!
Your likeness isn’t special or magical, it’s not going to grant people special psychic power over you or allow someone else to claim your rewards in the afterlife, it’s just a picture in a sea of a billion pictures - so what?
Hide? No, share your photos with people you know and care about.
We’re in a thread talking about photos being taken from public postings, like Facebook, Instagram, and Xitter, and using those photos with AI to make porn. That’s the reason not to share your shit publicly. Nobody has said anything remotely like your likeness is magical or grants psychic power.
I remember being in high school and I remember people sharing nude images of each other on those old ass snap a picture cell phones. Or a couple of my cousins going on facebook and rating all the women 1 to 10.
And before people were doing it was computers they were doing it with their imagination.
Same new shit same old story, it's all going to be fine.
I would imagine it’s likely to empower all kinds of unhealthy and concerning behaviors. People are fucking weird and if you can use AI to create a kind of virtualized sex slave out of the publicly available data on any person you know, that could be a real problem for society.
I honestly think something like that is going to be as much or more of a harm for the person making/using it. When the world is just flooded with fake images I think we’re gonna get jaded by them very quickly and it will be just another form of (really fucked up) cyberbullying.
For the people making them the harm is more insidious. They’re likely to be doing it in secret (because weird/immoral sex stuff) and isolating themselves, and we end up in a weird Futurama Lucy Liu-Bot situation with even more social isolation and further declining mental health.
And they have the public so disenfranchised that the public’ll just go “fucking politicians” and move on with their lives instead of grabbing the torch and pitchforks and showing these assholes what accountability for politicians used to look like in the old days. Perhaps show them why we don’t play by those rules anymore and why they shouldn’t inspire the public to continue playing by those old rules.
Note: I am euphemistically edging towards tar and feathering more so than anything else. Anything nonlethal but severe in nature and consequence, that sort of thing.
Note: I am euphemistically edging towards tar and feathering more so than anything else. Anything nonlethal but severe in nature and consequence, that sort of thing
FYI, having boiling tar painted on someone’s body resulted in death the vast majority of the time, either immediately or days/weeks later after excruiting pain.
It’s just on TV it’s portrayed as a funny thing that happens to scoundrels who are completely fine even immediately after it happened.
Ahhhh sheesh you definitely got me there… In that case I’d like to revise my stance to be a bit safer and reduce it to just gluing the feathers to them using Elmer’s or something safer than skin peeling tar :/
Something scary and mob actiony but that doesn’t result in inevitable death.
Long ago, we decided that gathering to issue a formal redress of our grievances was an acceptable alternative to simply breaking down our ruler’s front doors and beating them to death in front of their families. These Republicans really want to go back to those days.
This needs putting on billboards, I’m fed up of bringing this to people’s attention. With a slight wording tweak, it’s applicable to a worldwide audience too.
Well, America elected FDR about 80 years ago mostly because he was going to do universal healthcare…
Politicians from both parties told him they needed another couple years to crunch the numbers. The compromise was Social Security, but they added the income cap and told FDR his next term they’d expand it
BTW: that cap is why Social Security is habitually underfunded.
In FDRs second term, they told him the same thing. Then changed the rules so he couldn’t get a third.
And today, 80+ years later, the president of America (who is a Democrat) and all the people in leadership positions for Dems are still saying it’s too soon and we need to wait a few more years.
If you’re tired of people criticizing politicians from their own party, how about you go to the party where its tradition to never do that?
Because if neither of the only two options are willing to do that, we’re all fucked.
So I’m going to keep pointing out how “not a Republican” isn’t what we have to fucking settle for. Even if that is true in the 2024 presidential election.
What does any of that have to do with Republicans trying to subvert the ballot initiatives in Ohio? Which is what this post is about.
My issue with what you are doing is that your comment here, and most of your other political themed comments elsewhere, are always taking aim at the democrats. Yes, there is a lot to be said about the current democratic party, what they haven't done and perhaps more importantly what they have done, but in my albeit really quick scroll through your comments I don't think I saw you actually talk about how Republicans are fucking shit up, only how democrats are failing.
What democrats did 80 years ago on the federal level is completely irrelevant to what Republicans are doing right now on the state level in Ohio.
What democrats did 80 years ago on the federal level is completely irrelevant to what Republicans are doing right now on the state level in Ohio.
That would make sense if they just did it once 80 years ago and haven’t spent Joe Bidens (almost) entire life continuously doing it…
My issue with what you are doing is that your comment here, and most of your other political themed comments elsewhere, are always taking aim at the democrats
Because if Dems become anymore like Republicans we have no chance left.
Like, if two houses catch fire and ones already burnt to the ground, are you going to demand firefighters put the same effort into both? Or are you going to realize the priority is the one that can still be saved?
You're being either disingenuous or simply repeating talking points.
FDR and many other Democratic presidents have campaigned on and tried to create a robust universal healthcare plan. Congressional Republicans prevented it. Every time.
In FDRs second term, they told him the same thing. Then changed the rules so he couldn’t get a third.
If you're talking about the 22nd Amendment, limiting presidents to two terms in office, that happened after FDR was elected four times, and died in office midway through his fourth term. And it's yet another way to put a giant thumb on the scale in order to give regressionist shitheels more power than they should fairly command in US politics. (See also: Electoral College, Three-Fifths Compromise, the filibuster, gerrymandering.) Without that scale-tipping, US politics would be way more left now than it is.
You should be more informed on history before citing it to support your preconceived ideas.
FDR and many other Democratic presidents have campaigned on and tried to create a robust universal healthcare plan. Congressional Republicans prevented it. Every time.
If only Dems hadn’t had a single period where they had majorities of the House, Senate, and a dem.president sometimes in the last 80 years…
What’s that? It happens pretty regularly but we never got universal healthcare? And it was even the situation during FDRs time in office?
Man, you’d be making a good point if any of what you’re saying was true, too bad it’s not tho
FDR tried to implement mandatory medical insurance for the needy, funded by a payroll tax. Not "universal healthcare." (I was incorrect on that above, because I was taking you on your word.) Truman wanted the same thing, but for everyone; this was decried as "socialist" (because we hate the Commies). Private insurance, doctors, hospitals all lobbied hard against it, as I'm sure they still do.
There's also a nice chart here which shows who controlled the Presidency and each house of Congress since 1901. Under FDR, Democratic control handled the Great Depression and WWII. JFK dealt with the Cuban Missile Crisis and Johnson did civil rights and Medicare/Medicaid. Obama did the Affordable Care Act.
Since you're hyper-focused on universal healthcare, can you name any Republican expansion of access to healthcare in the US? Ever?
Wait, you complained about me being focused on healthcare, but you still want to talk about it?
Well. “Obamacare” ended up being a more conservative version of Mitt Romeny’s plan.
But if we’re only giving credit for what’s done (and I agree with that) then suddenly all the things that make neoliberals better than Republicans disappears.
I mean, the only recent expansion of healthcare by either party was when Dems passed the more conservative version of Romney’s plan
You’re making my point, the letter by someone’s name doesn’t mean much when majorities of politicians from both parties oppose progresss
There’s just some with a D by their name that try, but progressives are still a minority in their own party unfortunately
Edit:
Actually with a profile blurb like that, I don’t think any exchange will ever be productive…
I’m just going to use the block button, feel free to keep responding, I’ll never see it.
Just don’t have time for sovereign citizens who openly call for execution of politicians, even if they’re terrible politicians…
I think you’re doing that thing where people believe the right position is always halfway between D and R
You've made it clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Actually with a profile blurb like that, I don’t think any exchange will ever be productive…
I'm sure you're referring to #ExecuteTrump. Which is a reference to his own penchant for calling for the execution of his political enemies, under the cover of calling it "political speech." If he can do it, so can I.
Yeah, lots of “moderate” Dems get really shitty when people point out that voters can want more than a D by someone’s name.
That’s the type of attitude that brought us the modern Republican party lead by trump. Republicans don’t care how bad he is, just about the letter by his name.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.