it is what you want to say, not me obviously, stop lying.

There are literally millions of people doing nothing today, what you are advocating here has already happened, why aren't you happy anyway, is it because it's never enough? AFAIC everyone who can work should be taking care of himself/herself, government must not steal from one to subsidize another, especially in the system basically designed for complete corruption (and it is designed for complete corruption).

It is up to everyone individually to survive on this planet, if there are too many people unable to survive then it's a self correcting issue - they will not survive.

This is retarded.

1. It isn't for profit healthcare that is the problem, it's THIRD PARTY PAY.
2. I don't use third party pay, ever, for healthcare. I've been insured nonstop for over 30 years, and NEVER ONCE has my insurer paid my doctor.
3. Even when I've had emergencies, I still called around, negotiated a fair cash up front rate, paid cash up front, and billed it to my insurer. My cash up front rate was sometimes below any co-pay negotiated with my insurer, lol.

I just recently had some elective surgery that would have cost me about $2000 on my annual deductible, but I was able to cash pay a negotiated rate of $400 including a follow-up "free". I submitted the $400 to my insurer and they reimbursed me.

Third party insurance exists because YOU VOTERS demanded the HMO Act of the 1970s, which tied health care to employment, and then employers outsourced it to third parties.

Health care is remarkably cheap in the US (cash pay, negotiated) and I don't have to wait months to see a doctor when I call and say I am cash pay. They bump me up fast.

drone batteries have to be heated otherwise drones may not even take off, Ukrainian soldiers in the field use all sorts of ways to keep the batteries warm, for example chemical hand warmers are used for this.

I strive ICE vehicles and will keep buying them, ban or not, EV is not for me and since this is a ban that BMW is talking about, clearly this is not the choice of the people, not a market decision but an imposition by the currently elected officials, who can and will be replaced if they push such unpopular agenda.

the word BAN and the word market are incompatible.

No child Left behind was explicitly designed to sabotage schools so that the right wing could privatize them.

Sheesh, got any more tinfoil for your hat there? You do realize the bill passed both the House and Senate with effectively full support of both parties? If anything, it was disproportionate voted in favor by Democrats (there were more Repbulican Nays than Democrat in both the House and Senate vote).

When your opposition is a felon that is disliked by most people and your opposition still gets elected that should speak VOLUMES to the choice your party made for a candidate.

Does it, though? Can you actually articulate some concrete flaws about Kamala?

It has zero percent to do with the individual and everything to do with what she ran on. Harris staked her presidency as Biden 2.0, with effectively the same policies he was running the past 4 years. Biden's policies were polling at like ~70% unpopular. It also didn't help her that she came off as super disingenuous and fake when she tried to pivot to the middle late in the game. One particular instance that comes to mind was when she tried to pretend she was pro-fracking late in the election cycle in an attempt to win over Pennsylvania voters. It stood in stark contrast to everything she was previously on the record on regarding the topic in the 2020 election. Ultimately it just seemed fake/political/pandering. I don't think people bought her shift to the middle as genuine, especially when she wouldn't even admit anything she would do differently than Biden.

I simply can't understand why people would opt for Trump over *any* other candidate.

It's because of the shitty two party system. Believe it or not, many of the issues Trump focuses on are still not unpopular. Merely the way in which he's addressing them is what's unpopular. For instance, just to give one example, people wanted the border secured. People wanted a crackdown on crime. To some extent, they wanted a pullback on DEI overreach. Biden's policies were deeply unpopular, and Harris pretty much said she'd run on the same platform. So that's not exactly setting yourself up for success. So the tldr is that in a shitty two party system, voters preferred Trump's platform, despite not liking the individual personally. I believe they were also expecting a presidency closer to his first term, which was largely grounded, rather than the unhinged stuff currently going on.

This is news somehow that if you work for a company you make your salary or wage rather than dividends? If you want dividends, buy dividend paying stocks or start your own company.

Are you saying that people before didn't understand any of this? Peculiar.

You are really bad at this entire arguing thing, I run multiple companies, I have children, I travel extensively ( in the last 8 days I have been to Ukraine, Romania, Poland, Canada and the USA for example and this is just the start of this month, I traveled nearly every month since 2016). You don't know how old I am, you don't know a thing about me. I live this life here and now and given how many people I am actually responsible for I am certain that I care about many things. One of those things is freedom of the people who are alive today and are and should making decisions on their own behalf without any government telling them what they should or must do.

- first of all, they are the past, before ICE vehicles EVs were already here. So nothing new there. Also they are the present, there are many electric vehicles in service today, buses, trains, trams, things that can be heavy and receive energy over wires, golf cars. I personally own a few electric vehicles, they are not cars but electric unicycles, scooters. Actually very large dump trucks are electric with a diesel powered generator on board.

Secondly, what is this nonsense, you have used the analogy of the horse and car in your first comment and now you are berating me for using it back at you? The hell? If anyone set up a strawwan then it would be you.

I am completely correct, there is no benefit to an EV for me from an ICE vehicle at all, there are only detriments. It is not at all the same with a horse and a car, a car is definitely better than a horse for moving me around and moving passengers and whatever things I want to move.

There is no benefit for me switching to an EV as it would be in case if I had a horse and someone offered me to switch to a car, so I don't understand this entire line of reasoning that you are engaging into.

My ICE vehicle is *better* than an EV, that's all there is to it. It doesn't make me nauseous when I drive it or when I am a passenger, EVs constantly make me want to vomit, what sort of a benefit is that????? Why would you want me to be riding something that makes me feel like shit, do you have people or do you hate me specifically?

I don't want to be tied to charging stations, power plugs either.

Now, if *IF* I could get an electric vehicle with a NUCLEAR power plant on board where I wouldn't have to recharge for 25 years straight, yes, I would take that. I would change the drive train to suit my specific needs, I would make sure this thing doesn't make me want to puke but I would take that over an ICE vehicle because it would actually be better.

Do you understand the difference? It would actually provide me with a new degree of freedom that my ICE vehicles don't have - ability to never bother fueling them in the first place. This would be very useful. I wouldn't throw away my sports cars but I would totally use a nuclear powered electric vehicle for all sorts of long trips.

Basically you have completely avoided the question I posed in the very beginning, if the EVs are better from point of view of the market, then there wouldn't be any need for any mandates. If the mandates are needed, then it means there is no significant demand for the EVs and it means that government mandates would only make companies lose money unless there are subsidies (paid for by everyone and even this becomes extremely questionable in the current economy).

If there is no market for these cars but there are mandates and no subsidies, this means the government is going against the wishes of vast majority and would have to impose laws prohibiting ICE cars, I expect such moves by the government to cause more people like Trump coming to power to remove the existing government structures because they are clearly going against the wishes of the people.

while cars are superior to horses in most ways that matter to move people abd goods, there is no such clear cut superiority of electric cars over ICE, quite the opposite. An exple - I don't like the feeling of electric car acceleration or motion, this is a physical attribute of an electric vehicle, to me it matters. I prefer my cars to be powered by gas, which I can easily pump and keep driving in minutes, I don't want to constrain myself by having to plan my daily routines and trips around charging my transport. I also like my air breathing sport car, something of a luxury, doesn't matter. I am not the only one who likes an actual automobile to ride in as opposed to an electric kettle.

My cars move me and passengers, they move anything inside them, they are comfortable, fast, they don't make me want to throw up at every take off and stop. They don't require me to carefully plan my routines and trips.

There is no benefit for me to switch to electric, while the negatives outweigh any perceived benefits. I believe you are mistaken in your comparison.

The question remains, if the market is not there, what will the manufacturers do with this stupid government mandate? If the market is there (you insist switching to an electric is like switching to a car from a horse, so the market should be there, right?) then why bother with any mandates?

How are the manufacturers supposed to go against the wishes of the customers? For example I will not buy an electric car, I own cars, I will own more cars, they will not be electric. Any company has to take into account that there are people who will not buy electric. The only real way for a government to force these is to set up subsidies at everyone else's expense. Sure, they can attempt and pass laws to make ICE cars illegal, however they will be voted out based on this alone and another set of people will be placed there who will not take away people's freedoms to this extent.

Really, so the benefits of computers are disproportionately derived by the wealthy? Except for all of the people who use them to make money today in every possible way, from video gaming, to just being developers, analysts, fintech guys, architects, farmers, clothing designers, etc.etc.etc. Also what are benefits? I am supposedly deriving benefits from communications, banking, transportation, energy, food, medicine, entertainment, clothing, and everything else that uses computers. What is this 'middle class' you are talking about by the way? The middle class grew by enormous numbers if you count the entire world and not only the USA. In China hundreds of millions of people have joined the middle class for example, so you are just pushing some nonsense that has no basis in reality.