milicent_bystandr

No, it's 25% tariff on runtime resources. Time to switch to Musk-flavored lisp, and Make America Functional Again! Or C+Trump, if unsafe efficiency is what you're after.

Now there's a comment I can hear!

Do you die if you don't leave the toilet before the music stops? Is your seat your last save checkpoint, or do you respawn right back at the airport?

I don't think that is micromanaging at all. Abortion: federal level has fought for it to be ruled at state level. That's lifting restriction. State level: those states which have restricted it, are doing it on the idea of protecting the life of the foetus: that's restricting specifically what appears to them as killing another person. Birth control: not restricted, is it. Healthcare: removing or changing federal subsidised healthcare: that's not restricting or micromanaging! It's just removing a good thing! (Yes, I think national healthcare is good.) Abolishing gay marriage: hasn't happened. Trans rights: "you should use your identified gender bathroom" Vs "you should use your birth sex bathroom" is not one more micromanaging than the other.

And, believe it or not, these are not the only things going on in America. Again, if you pick and choose, yes you can make an argument one particular way. Doesn't help you help anybody else though.

You see, they have the most to lose, so they're the most vulnerable!

I presume most Republican voters didn't anticipate Trump wrecking the system of accountability and checks in government, or don't understand what's happening. I'm sure many think he really is destroying the bad that's allegedly entrenched in the system, and a good one will settle in its place.

How would you implement it? Given time and breadth, I expect one could find downsides.

But if it were really just that? Heavier progressive tax affecting the super-rich more, with enforcement on the rich to actually pay it? Sounds good to me.

I was going to say it's not worth my time to think of downsides to that - but actually I can see two already. One is on principle, that wealth earned shouldn't be penalised. Especially when there is real communal wealth generated by e.g. Amazon. I've even wondered, at times, if this sort of taxation provides a band-aid for avoiding the real work of stopping the injustice that leads to the wealth imbalance in the first place (like wage theft etc.).

The second is again how you implement it. I've seen a few fallacies in discussions of taxing the super-rich, around that complicated topic of what wealth really is when it includes company shares. You can shortcut that and say, well it's definitely worth taxing Musk et al and anyhow they'll have plenty of money left over - but if you do it slapdash like that, even if the effects don't spill over to the poor, it's still an injustice. And an injustice, even if hidden and apparently benign, is still a downside.

But yeah, tax the rich :-D. Please do!

Except the Far Side.

Is that so. It hasn't looked that way to me, from the news. More, it's looked like people getting paranoid that it's that way. But I typically only see big news from America, and not from many news sources. What I see more is Trump being a ridiculous bully, making a mess of relations both at home and abroad, and Musk doing the nerd equivalent, trying to solve government bureaucracy as if he knows everything and damaging everything in the process, not heeding anyone's caution. But not micromanaging society.

But if it is, I don't think that's what the Repb supporters see, and this sort of comparison is about how one picks and chooses certain aspects of the two sides to compare.

Are you off the opinion, then, that no evil is done by the Dems, or farther-left people and politicians? I'm not American, and I won't now compare to the countries I have lived in. But from what I hear, for starters the Dems are much accused of taking money from big companies to influence policy - and the blocking of Sanders for presidential bid was suggested to be that. The pharmaceutical industry, whilst nobly providing the world with COVID vaccines and many other great things, is not exactly known for its honest policies. People more specifically? I don't care to take the time to look at their lives, since I'm not part of your country and don't vote for them. Will you claim to me that Bernie does no wrong? That Biden has no hypocrisy? That latter I remember a couple of notable incidents.

Yes the far right evil is plain and obvious these days. That will not mean the Left, or Centre, will do no wrong if in power. I think quite a small look at history will show that, but my experience is outside of America. Maybe the Dems in America are saintly and perfect? Loving and incorruptible? Putting their country first in every situation and caring for all people fairly, not letting money sway their interest? What lucky people you are, to have such a party! How strange, that so large a percentage of your countrymen could not see the perfection that shines in the Dems! How unnecessary, that every day I see on Lemmy pro-Dem propaganda that twists the truth and sensationalises the mundane; for with such a perfect party, you could stick plainly to the truth, and their goodness would shine out without problem.

It must be nice in America to know you have a political side entirely without evil. For such a side I have not seen in the world.

How about the freedom to own a place to live without being taxed for existing? The freedom to employ people based on what you think best for the company rather than to fulfil a race/gender quota? The freedom to educate your children the way you think best? The freedom to protect your children from disease the way you think best? The freedom to protect your family from illicit CIA experimentation by being borderline-paranoid? The freedom to make and sell the food you want, and drive the car you want?

Every one of these is restricted by government, and - if I'm not mistaken - traditionally more by Dems. Every one of these also has an upside to restricting! Mandatory vaccines. Standardised curriculums. Undoing oppression of blacks. Regulated food safety. But doing those upsides means restricting freedoms, and - as you might imagine - people disagree on the balance.

If you don't understand the positive reasons why Republicans and others want their policies, then you lose the ability to help them see reason. You just sound smug and stuck in your political bigotry.

It is controversial, I suppose. I also don't want the rich being able to oppress people, and generally stand with you on most left-style policies talked about here on Lemmy. But restricting the power of the rich comes with downsides, and the extreme versions of it haven't worked out well historically either.

As to her age, if she can learn to trust wise people around her, she can do much better than an old person with experience who only sees things their own way! For that reason it might be better to run soon if possible, to have the wisdom of Sanders with her. Hopefully there's other wise people she trusts to mentior/advise her as well.