You don’t get one without the other. You don’t get to choose.

There’s a good chance she won’t make it to then. American life expectancy is only mid-70s and declining.

A deterrent for being old, having no realistic alternative to driving, and a failed licensing program?

Wow, nice personal anecdote. It must be true, then. Let’s just ignore all medical evidence because you think it’s not true.

People age differently, and many people experience cognitive decline that impairs their decision-making, resulting in overestimation of their current, now-degraded abilities.

Your ability to evaluate yourself often degrades with age. It is the state’s responsibility to independently verify that the drivers they license are capable of driving safely.

If prison is for rehabilitation and not punishment, are you suggesting we rehabilitate this woman for being elderly?

The NY Post is a rag.

The driver is in her eighties, in poor health, previously had a clean record, was not intoxicated or distracted, showed remorse for what happened, and did not contest the charges against her. It is unknown if she suffered a medical incident at the time of the crash.

If prisons are truly for rehabilitation and not punishment, what is she to be rehabilitated for? She already doesn’t have much time left, and being thrown into an overcrowded, run down prison purely out of spite would only serve to further reduce her life expectancy and waste state funds.

If anything, this is a symptom of the state’s over reliance on cars, and insufficient testing and certification of elderly drivers.

Why should she keep her composure?

This is coming from the leader of the country that launched their own ‘surprise’ and killed over 250,000 of her country’s civilians.

Both are important.

Legal cases create precedents which can be used to fight similar cases in the future.

We can’t be giving the people what they want, now can we?

We say end the war

Yeah, but here’s the thing… Dem leadership is not saying they want to end the war.

Thanks for reading the article.

deleted by creator

Is there a time besides maybe the 2010s where people had more disposable income ?

Yeah, bud.

It was called 1940-2007.

Line go down, rent go up. What do?

This is just not true for many people. A home is an asset. When paying a mortgage, you build equity that can be recouped if you decide to sell, or which can be used as collateral for another loan. When renting, you are still paying a mortgage, except is the landlord’s and you own nothing. Rent prices can also change at any time and by large amounts, forcing renters to move. The cost of owning a home is much more stable and predictable.

Homes are also typically bought with a loan and a relatively small down payment, making them a leveraged asset. Eg, if you put down 30k on a 300k house and prices increase 5%, the value of your home just went up 15k. If you instead just put 30k in stocks, you would need an increase of 50% to get the same result.

Regardless, when it comes to housing, your primary concern should always be stability and not “profitability”.

Front page isn’t too bad though, most of the time

Lmao

Dozens of countries host US military bases. While currently unlikely, the individual host nations could absolutely forcefully overtake or otherwise expel the bases within their borders while the US flounders about in Iran.

The US has just shown it can’t protect it’s bases, and their presence only invites more conflict.

The US frequently attends these exercises, and finished with this one around Feb 25, 2026.

They knew, because they were there.

Mission accomplished.

Did you not read the fucking source linked?

Ironic.

If you had read the source I linked, you would see that it contradicts your point.

10+ years at minimum, is not “very recent”. A majority supported single payer healthcare before 2016.

In February [2016], a Harvard University survey discovered that a majority of 18-to-29-year-olds, did not support capitalism, and preferred socialism instead.

Horseshit.

Data for Progress released survey results late last month showing that 65% of likely US voters—including 78% of Democrats, 71% of Independents, and 49% of Republicans—either strongly or somewhat support “creating a national health insurance program, sometimes called ‘Medicare for All,’ that would cover all Americans and replace most private health insurance plans.”

Elected democrats consistently vote against massively popular propositions.