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

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

#311

Post by cyberferret » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:22 PM UTC

trav4225 wrote: post #212

cyberferret wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That one popped out at me too - 1 in 2 out?? It's not like decluttering a house - these are the fundamental building blocks of society...

No offense, but the overwhelming majority of them are not (IMO).

Fair enough. But then shouldn't the process me "Lets sit down and look at these, and take out the ones that are just not applicable nowadays?". This tit-for-tat style bargaining usually just ends up with both sides compromising or making rash decisions which may end up with the baby being thrown out with the bath water...

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

#312

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:22 PM UTC

b_emery wrote: post #143

I'll bet he doesn't know that the pubic sector shrank more under Obama than the previous presidents: "The public sector grew during Mr. Carter's term (up 1,304,000), during Mr. Reagan's terms (up 1,414,000), during Mr. G.H.W. Bush's term (up 1,127,000), during Mr. Clinton's terms (up 1,934,000), and during Mr. G.W. Bush's terms (up 1,744,000 jobs). However the public sector has declined significantly since Mr. Obama…

[deleted]

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

#313

Post by pfraze » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:22 PM UTC

jacobolus wrote: post #293

pfraze wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coal mining and related production is a large employer. It's about propping up small coal-towns.

Except it’s not nearly a large enough employer to single-handedly prop up the places where it dominates. Coal mining has been substantially automated compared to a few decades ago, and the total number of coal jobs is down to a small fraction of its peak. Even if we doubled or tripled coal production, local economies in coal country would still be limping. It’s not like executives/stockholders of coal companies are d…

Do you think there isn't any remaining connection between labor and coal's political resilience? Coal-politics could be explained as a lobbied interest, but that doesn't feel like a complete enough picture to me.

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

#314

Post by 1024core » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:22 PM UTC

elevenfist wrote: post #144

internaut wrote: post #4

> FIRST propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress. If he does this alone, then he's made a huge impact. I'm really concerned he might be assassinated.

Get real, this is an amazing boon for lobbyists. Members of congress would not be able to gain experience at crafting legislation and dealing with the entire shitshow process at the federal level. Lobbyists can still be lobbyists for life. On top of that, this significantly weakens congress's position when raising funds for elections. They've got to dance to the right tune quickly, they can't slowly ramp up a career…

Anecdata time. I was at a conference. During the dinner, a couple sat next to me, and the husband happened to be a lobbyist in Sacramento (CA). We talked about term limits, and he was laughing at how he, having been around so long, was the go-to resource for incoming newbie representatives in the committee he lobbied. With a "trust me", he could get stuff into legislation with ease.

This is not to say that term limits are bad. But just term limits alone may not be enough to curb corruption.

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

#315

Post by e0m » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:23 PM UTC

Given that the Republicans have a majority in BOTH the House and the Senate, it's likely a majority of these initiatives will go through!

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

#316

Post by tptacek » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:23 PM UTC

akiselev wrote: post #307

Alupis wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd actually be surprised if there were many of those. There are entire books written filled with silly, outdated, or absurd laws and regulations (both federal and state). Here's just a taste[1]: > 18 USC §1382 & 32 CFR §636.28(g)(iv) make it a federal crime to ride a moped into Fort Stewart without wearing long trousers. > 16 USC §551 & 36 CFR §261.16(c) make it a crime to wash a fish at a faucet if it's not a fis…

I keep seeing this mistake made over and over again. Regulations are not laws like the above, which are written by the legislature. The vast majority of regulations are written by experts in the relevant fields working for agencies in the executive branch. The legislature grants regulatory agencies jurisdiction and provides general guidance/intent but the most of the specifics are left to the regulatory body to decid…

I think that's why they cite both the authorizing statute, which creates criminal penalties for violating regulations, and the regulations themselves.

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

#317

Post by exclusiv » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:23 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…

Agreed. Positioning is everything. If rather than saying people's cars are causing global warming, they said how about we get off our reliance of foreign energy as a matter of security and by the way it's better for the environment and energy will get cheaper, there would be more buy in. But they can't help themselves because they can't get over their disdain for skeptics. They have an agenda and it's a religion for most.

I don't hear anything about the sun when climate change is brought up and it's over 99% of the mass of the solar system. Then you have people talking about feeling how warm it is when we are talking about small changes.

If it was 82 outside and you polled people, you'd get all kinds of results. But suddenly anthro climate pushers are super sensitive thermometers. They talk about weather events when you try to have a climate discussion all the time.

Questioning is science, especially when you can't prove it like the speed of light.

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

#318

Post by melling » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:23 PM UTC

threeseed wrote: post #249

ainot wrote: post #176

> Completely ignorant position. Completely insulting and repulsive. Perhaps you were searching for "basket of deplorables"?

It is by definition ignorant which means "lacking knowledge or awareness of a specific issue". It was not a personal slight. It was not intended to be insulting not repulsive. And I am confused why on earth you would bring basket of deplorables into this. It is quite clear though that you are looking at everything as an attack against Trump and conservatism which it isn't. https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=aino…

Yes, but i am well aware of the problem. You seem to be unaware of the fact the oil/gas advantage doesn't matter with many Republicans. Would that qualify as ignorant?

You are screaming that we need to "level the playing field", while I'm pointing out that we currently need to make progress in the current political environment.

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

#319

Post by nikatwork » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:24 PM UTC

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…

> for every new federal regulation, 2 existing regulations must be eliminated

I'd read this more as a position and statement of intent than a concrete plan. The devil will be in the spirit of the execution, not the letter.

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

#320

Post by freehunter » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:24 PM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #267

nkw wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/…

> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/46 To me, this sounds like a quarantine law. All countries have these, e.g. it is not allowed to transport certain meat products or other foods across German borders. > https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1716E Once again, a "standard" anti-trafficking law. > https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/39 What? Such things exist? Are these "traffic signal preemption…

>What? Such things exist? Are these "traffic signal preemption transmitter" devices used in e.g. ambulances?

Yes, they're used at some intersections to forcibly change the light to green. And they're basic IR transmitters so they're ridiculously easy to make.