“We are going to do something that I will say is slightly controversial but it shouldn’t be. We are going to indemnify policemen and precincts and states and cities from being sued. We want them to do their job. Our police and law enforcement has to come back and they want to come back and …

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/9405812

“We are going to do something that I will say is slightly controversial but it shouldn’t be. We are going to indemnify policemen and precincts and states and cities from being sued. We want them to do their job. Our police and law enforcement has to come back and they want to come back and they want to do their job. And we are going to indemnify them so they don’t lose their wife, their family, their pension, and their job. We are going to indemnify policemen and law enforcement. We are going to tell them to get out, we love you, do your job.” – Trump, speaking last night at the New York Young Republicans Club gala.

Trump going after the tyrant vote.

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    I already told you, I sit between progressives and moderates because I have the same goals as progressives and the same methods as moderates (or at least what would be considered a slower and measured process).

    You know, that makes you a conservative right? Slowing progress and social change is the heart of conservatism. (In reality republican “conservatives” are in fact regressive- which is why they got rid of RvW, want to get rid of Obama care, and deregulate every regulation curtailing corporates.)

    Just something for you to think about.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      1·
      11 months ago

      I should probably clarify what I mean. Healthcare for example – I have no qualms about instantly moving to a Medicare for All system, or establishing a copy of say the UK or German system.

      My caution would be on what comes after that. Currently pretty much every universal healthcare system has a form of supplemental private insurance for those who want it. I wouldn’t immediately support abolishing all insurance, because that’s untread ground. I would however immediately support commissioning studies to figure out what it would look like and if there’s any unexpected issues that come up. Alternatively, if someone else tests it and things look good, then let’s immediately jump to abolishing insurance.

      For a lot of American issues actually there wouldn’t be much difference. We have plenty to catch up on. We could adopt European systems without any concern.

      I think my mentality probably applies more with climate change, where I don’t want the government to start building large scale fusion reactors when we really haven’t proved out the technology. Or, deploying a chemical additive in the atmosphere to absorb CO2, without extensive studies on the after effects. I don’t want us to create an even bigger problem with the solution.

      EDIT: And to be clear, when I say we shouldn’t immediately ban all private insurance, that’s not out of love for those companies. It’s to figure out how we smoothly transition everyone currently working in that industry to a new job. I don’t want a situation where all of those workers suddenly become unemployed or are thrown to the wolves.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        11 months ago

        I appreciate the clarification there. thank you.

        I think my mentality probably applies more with climate change, where I don’t want the government to start building large scale fusion reactors when we really haven’t proved out the technology. Or, deploying a chemical additive in the atmosphere to absorb CO2, without extensive studies on the after effects. I don’t want us to create an even bigger problem with the solution.

        Just a minor point, I don’t think any progressives are actually pushing for fusion (it’s only barely gotten past break-even in billions of dollars worth of global investment.) if we wanted to talk about fission… there’s some new technologies there that don’t have all of the draw backs of classic fusion; and their modularity could be a reasonable solution for places that wind or solar aren’t. (they’re being developed, for example, to power giant container ships).

        same goes with any form of carbon capture. The feeling I have (and seems to be echoed by most) is that carbon capture is great and all, but it’s basically an excuse for companies to just not change what they’re doing; and it’s siphoning funds from actual solutions. I would like to see some carbon capture happen, but not at the expense of actually solving the problem.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          1·
          11 months ago

          Oh modular reactors are a really good technology that we really need to deploy. SMRs are designed to be inherently safe too iirc. Nuclear and hydrogen also go together really, really well. And I completely agree on carbon capture. Actually removing it from the atmosphere is where I’d be very cautious, but it would be the most impactful carbon you could capture.

          Also I was just using fusion as a quick example, I’m not sure I’ve heard anyone in the political sphere talk about it yet. The example I actually had in mind was healthcare and M4A, because I thought at first M4A was going to instantly abolish all insurance. I think I remember reading though that it still keeps supplemental private insurance like everywhere else, which is exactly where we need to start.

          Honestly that’s the only example I can really think of where I’ve been more cautious, and I’m mistaken there too. I might not be as different as I think.