Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#271

Post by pmarreck » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:07 PM UTC

dmfdmf wrote: post #260

pmarreck wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has it become that radical to suggest that smart, well-educated people may in fact see further into the consequences of things (particularly in their areas of expertise, but probably also peripherally), see more cognitive bias, have better critical-thinking skills, remember more mistakes from history, and all around make better long-term decisions? Why is that even offensive to anyone? Just because of someone's perso…

I think you are over-generalizing the Dunning-Kruger effect in your strawman argument. Moreover, you might want to consider that its not intellectualism -v- anti-intellectualism but psuedo-intellectualism -v- anti-psuedo-intellectualism behind the Trump win. There is a difference.

Can you clarify what you mean by "pseudo-intellectualism -v- anti-pseudo-intellectualism"?

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#272

Post by einrealist » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:08 PM UTC

jdc0589 wrote: post #122

> FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal This is what I have the biggest problem with. The ONLY WAY we are going to continue making progress towards widespread clean renewable energy is if it is financially beneficial for corporations to continue investing in R&D. Sure, there are s…

This is a declaration of war.

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#273

Post by sp332 » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:08 PM UTC

skeletonjelly wrote: post #183

cesarbs wrote: post #95

A lot of what's in there seems pretty reasonable, but: 1) The whole border wall thing is just ridiculous. I thought he had given up on that. Why would Mexico have to pay for that? If the US wants to build a wall, fine, build it and pay for it. It doesn't make sense to demand that Mexico pay for it. It's like building a wall on your property and demanding your neighbors pay for it. 2) The FDA thing is scary. Regulatio…

> I thought he had given up on that. FWIW this document isn't dated that I can see but it does refer to election day like so: "On November 8th, Americans will be voting for this 100-day plan to restore prosperity to our economy, security to our communities and honesty to our government" So I assume it was written before the election

The filename has 102316 in it so probably 10/23/16, only two weeks ago.

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#274

Post by peteretep » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:09 PM UTC

melling wrote: post #103

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #43

Some of this sounds great - term limits on congress, a measure to reduce the revolving door effect of government officials going into lobbying. Some of it sounds ridiculous - for every new federal regulation, 2 existing regulations must be eliminated. How is that considered feasible by any rational person? It might sound great if you don't think too hard about it. The scariest things for me are the backing out of cli…

I guess you haven't been paying attention. Many people don't believe in Global Warming, or at the very least don't want to even slightly impact the economy. The Democrats weren't going to hold office forever, and neither will the Republicans. The best thing for everyone would be for market-based solutions that have clear advantages. Solar, wind, electric cars, nuclear, etc. Republicans, for example, will put solar on…

    > Many people don't believe in Global Warming

I spent a lot of time reading the "Ask Trump Supporters" Reddit this cycle. Climate Change was one issue where almost all of them broke with their candidate, which was pretty interesting to me.

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#275

Post by at-fates-hands » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:09 PM UTC

danblick wrote: post #218

jdc0589 wrote: post #122

> FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal This is what I have the biggest problem with. The ONLY WAY we are going to continue making progress towards widespread clean renewable energy is if it is financially beneficial for corporations to continue investing in R&D. Sure, there are s…

America has enough shale oil to be a net energy exporter, which means no more dealing with Venezuela or need for huge defense spending to protect strategic resources across the world. So I dunno, I can see why developing those resources might be in our interest.

>> which means no more dealing with Venezuela or need for huge defense spending to protect strategic resources across the world.

The problem is that we HAD energy independence when we discovered oil in the Bakken Peninsula and what happened? Our fearless leaders who wanted to be energy independent had a great chance to tell OPEC to go screw themselves and what happened?

They let them go to war with OPEC. We lost jobs, oil companies shut down in droves as the race to the bottom happened. OPEC said it wanted to put them out of business and for the most part, the people in Washington talking big about energy independence let it happen.

I have no faith they will ever keep their word. We had a wonderful opportunity and they let OPEC drive our companies out of business and cost that region thousands of jobs. And in the process, drive up the cost of oil as well.

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#276

Post by danieltillett » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:09 PM UTC

I can’t believe that he is really going to go through with:

THIRD, I will direct the Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator.

Has nobody told him what this is going to do to the economy? The rest of his proposals he will have to get past congress and the courts, but this is one he can do all on his own.

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#277

Post by rocqua » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:10 PM UTC

jdc0589 wrote: post #122

> FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal This is what I have the biggest problem with. The ONLY WAY we are going to continue making progress towards widespread clean renewable energy is if it is financially beneficial for corporations to continue investing in R&D. Sure, there are s…

That and >FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered “extreme vetting.”

are the 2 most scary things on that first page. I really like his limitations on lobbying though. I hope they aren't too ham-fisted and easy to get around.

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#278

Post by douche » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:10 PM UTC

mark242 wrote: post #161

If the Secretary of the Treasury designates China as a currency manipulator, your new iPhone will wind up costing you $2000. What madness.

If it really becomes a big deal, Apple can move the factory back state-side. They are getting to the point where Chinese labor is getting expensive enough that they are automating manufacturing and replacing people with robots over there anyway.

Human labor is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#279

Post by dgacmu » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:11 PM UTC

nkw wrote: post #152

kbenson wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems the thing to do would be higher interns to start scouring for every "A married woman shall not chop down a birchwood tree on the day of her wedding while wearing her bridal gown" style law. Sure, but how many of those exist at a federal level? Those are often city, county and sometimes state regulations.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/711 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/707 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/710 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/46 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2285 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1716E https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1730 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1762 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/…

Some of those can and should be consolidated - but they're not all quite as flippant as you might think. The prohibition of transport of water hyacinth, for example, is because it's a massively bad invasive species: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichhornia_crassipes#United_St...

Sure, it too should probably be consolidated - perhaps under the Lacey act or the Plant Protection Act or Alien Species Prevention and Enforcement Act. But it's not actually a dumb regulation, just an inefficient expression.

You can probably imagine that the letter carrier uniform one may have been in response to fraud. Same for the false weather reports - it's kind of useful to be able to whack someone on the wrist for publishing a hoax tornado warning.

I'm all for the idea of cleaning up our soup of regulations, but I think it's worth noting that many of them exist for a reason, and it's typically more complex than the famously silly "can't ride a horse in a dress on sunday"-type laws still found on some state books.

Putting my geek hat back on, It'd be cool if we could train an LSTM to de-dup laws... ;) But I guess in the meantime there are interns.

Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

#280

Post by Nadya » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:12 PM UTC

deadringerr wrote: post #135

hacker_9 wrote: post #29

"limit, freeze, eliminate, ban, withdraw, label, end, remove, suspend and cancel" Just some of the words that stuck out to me.

He had an entire TV show about firing people. He appears to prefer to destroy rather than create.

Absolutely terrible example.

The TV show created many jobs (producers, editors, filmers, the 'assistant' (spokesperson...) position being fought for) and those who were "fired" (never really hired to begin with, were they?) failed to meet the job requirement. Which was to be the best business-person. A meritocracy, as things should be, rather than being based on race/gender/filling some sort of diversity quota.

In reality they became spokespeople when they won. But that wasn't what the show was about or portrayed. Trump was portrayed as the "hard/rough" sort of boss and the "You're fired." was just the slogan/catchphrase which worked wonderfully as a TV catchphrase/slogan. It was short, memorable, and people knew where it was from.

There was a whole lot more creation than destruction....