He was attempting to purchase a gun for work, but wasn't able to. He was flagged in the system which is why ICE went after him.
The police department used DHS's own "e-verify" website to make sure that Evans was able to work. So, it sounds like some of their own internal systems are unreliable.
After reading through the article, this is a misleading title. It sounds like he's trying to say that Biden voters are all wealthy people that wouldn't need this:
Well, you wouldn’t give it to everybody, you’d give it to the working people,” the Missouri Republican told far-right podcaster and former Trump adviser Steve Bannon on Tuesday. “You’d give it to our people.”
“I mean, you know, the rich people don’t need it … what I mean by that is all those Democrat donors of Wall Street, all these hedge fund guys, who all hate the tariffs, by the way."
Hertz keeps failing again and again with their automated systems. Only within the past few years did they finally settle with 364 customers that were falsely accused/arrested for stealing their cars.
They have an automated system for generating police reports on stolen cars, but there were many instances of customers falsely reported when they had actually called in to extend the rental, or if they had rented a car which had previously been flagged as stolen (but not corrected in their system).
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/06/1140998674/hertz-false-accusation-stealing-cars-settlement
One way to handle Trumpers like this is to flip the argument to something that they care about.
"If everyone in a state wants something, go ahead and have it."
Response: "So what you're saying is that, if everyone in California wants ICE to stop their raids, the federal government should leave them alone?
I think it would be great if we set the age limit to be tied to a percentage of the average expected lifespan of the country's citizens in some way. Setting a hard age limit wouldn't be adaptive enough.
It would incentivize them to pass legislation and regulations which help increase everyone's life expectancy. It would also somewhat help in the case of a future where some medical advances allow only those with enough money to have insanely increased lifespans.
Still issues here, but modlogs are mostly public, and anyone can verify what you actually said by looking at the logs. Definitely makes it easier over at !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com to see what's going on.
Oh I'm not pretending that at all and I don't see how I implied that in any way. What I'm trying point out is that you'll have precedence on your side when going to court if the FTC does the same thing for a Republican measure.
What do you mean by "people like you?"
I'm not against the click-to-cancel rule, we definitely need something like that.
As for economic effect... That isn't something the court should be concerned with anyway!
The court ruling wasn't on the economic effect of the click-to-cancel rule. The ruling was that the FTC skipped their own requirements to make this rule.
Engadget seems to have the least amount of information on this topic. The Ars Technica article went into a lot more detail.
I think this is bad in the short term, but good in the long run. The ruling doesn't stop the FTC from going through the process again for the Click-to-Cancel rule. They just have to follow the correct procedures. In this case they underestimated the annual economic effect that their rule would have, and at a certain threshold they are required to have a preliminary regulatory analysis for a rule.
The administration can weaponize the FTC if they really want to, so the courts ruling that the FTC has to follow the correct procedures helps to at least keep some things in check.
on it, but the tax could accumulate for when/if you do sell it.
That's already how tax works on selling a home (in the U.S.) It's called a Capital Gains Tax.
You can't just raise the taxes every year for what a home is worth to the market (I mean, you can, but then if someone has retired you're forcing them to pay more money every year as their home goes up in value). If you're just living off of social security, you don't have that kind of flexibility.
If you have a lot of time and enough conviction:
Lobbying, petitions, run a non-profit organization to do so.
It takes a lot of time and it's frustrating, but look at what individuals like Louis Rossmann and Ross Scott have been able to pull off with Right to Repair and the Stop Killing Games Movement.
If you don't have as much time:
Donate some time to projects to help out. For example, take a look at some of the projects listed underneath "Climate" category on Zooniverse: https://www.zooniverse.org/projects?discipline=climate
Here's a description of the project, "ClimateViz":
Extract information from various climate scientific graphics to combat misinformation and support scientific communication
It's not a "new red line". This is something that has already been tested in the courts because of a law written during WWII. It's only allowed in very narrow circumstances.
For instance:
If someone serves in a foreign military/government and they still have citizenship and it can be proven that it was voluntary.
The same law that allowed for that also attempted to allow for denaturalization in cases where someone:
Legal Eagle talked about those cases here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS-for7pUxU&t=980s
All they really need to do is make self-driving cars safer than your average human driver.