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

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

#321

Post by pfraze » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:25 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #305

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.

Brief research suggests there might be a few tens of thousands of new jobs if the industry massively expands using the average level of automation of existing plant (of course the expansion will use higher levels of automation). I guess from many perspectives that is a lot of jobs, but it isn't that many jobs.

I have the same question for you as I have for jacobolus; even if that's the reality, I can still see a political angle to pushing a coal investment, since it was historically a large employer.

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

#322

Post by mxfh » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:27 PM UTC

magicpat2010 wrote: post #19

teamhappy wrote: post #5

Did he upload this today?

Based on the filename, it looks like it was uploaded on October 23, 2016.

Here is the pdfinfo metadata of the file with MD5 69cbf547083badc96cd3d86ef233e124

    Title:          O-TRU-102316-Contractv06.indd
    Creator:        Adobe InDesign CC 2015 (Macintosh)
    Producer:       Adobe PDF Library 15.0
    CreationDate:   Tue Oct 25 15:34:22 2016
    ModDate:        Tue Oct 25 15:34:23 2016
    Tagged:         no
    Form:           none
    Pages:          2
    Encrypted:      no
    Page size:      612 x 792 pts (letter) (rotated 0 degrees)
    File size:      549294 bytes
    Optimized:      no
    PDF version:    1.3

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

#323

Post by orf » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:28 PM UTC

Zpalmtree wrote: post #292

orf wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cancel UN climate payments, use money instead on America water and environmental issues. Sounds good to me. Let China and India clean up their own mess, while we clean up our messes. What the hell. How ignorant is that.

You didn't respond to his point, you just insulted him.

He didn't make a point, just an ignorant statement. Which I responded to by pointing out that it was very ignorant.

If you care to make a point worth replying to about 'china and India cleaning up their own messes' (despite the US having the highest CO2 emissions per capita in the world by a huge margin, over 2x that of China's and nearly 10x that of India's, and for a far far far longer time) then be my guest.

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

#324

Post by oldmanjay » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:29 PM UTC

ainot wrote: post #168

gdulli wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is that considered feasible by any rational person? It's something that sounds simple and good to someone who not only isn't aware of the details of what it would mean in practice, but also isn't aware of their own inability to understand the details and nuance, or that there are details and nuance. It was a Dunning-Kruger election.

> The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority High brow smack (condescension) like that and "basket of deplorables" are what America revolted against. If the liberal left was truly smart, why did they allow the president to run up more national debt than all presidents prior...combined?

Here's Nate Silver today trying to explain trump:

> America hasn’t put its demons — including racism, anti-Semitism and misogyny — behind it. White people still make up the vast majority of the electorate, particularly when considering their share of the Electoral College, and their votes usually determine the winner.

By intentionally continuing to attempt to associate support for trump with a litany of unacceptable -isms that are the guilty burden of being white (men), he exposed the attitude that people are revolting against.

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

#325

Post by tptacek » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:29 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #170

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…

> 21 USC §461 & 9 CFR §381.171(d) make it a crime to sell "Turkey Ham" as "Ham Turkey" or with the words "Turkey" and "Ham" in different fonts Here's the law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/9/381.171 This is one of a large number of sections of the law that define what food products mean, for every food product on the market, and lead to a consistent UX at markets. It's not like someone passed the Turkey Ham Fo…

I'm not sure why I'm meant to be alarmed by "corn sugar". Sucrose is extremely unhealthy for you in the quantities consumed in naturally sweetened soda. High fructose corn syrup is "high in fructose" relative to corn syrup, not to sugar, which is itself naturally high in fructose.

More important context for the "ham" law is that the criminal penalty statute they're citing is actually meant to pair with this offenses statute:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/458

... it captures a bunch of other regulations by reference, including labeling laws, but that doesn't mean someone passed a law saying it should be a federal crime to use the wrong font for ham.

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

#326

Post by qaq » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:30 PM UTC

mywittyname wrote: post #246

qaq wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm totally not being a Trump supporter how does this empower China exactly? Russia's economy is the size of NYC so that is even stranger point especially given Trumps position on " 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"

The TPP (and other trade agreements) is largely about establishing key US companies into foreign markets. The US can, unsurprisingly, command the upper-hand in most negotiations due to our massive economic influence. These laws include protections for IP rights, financial regulation, and food/drug safety standards that allow US companies to operate and establish dominance in foreign markets. If the US refuses to buil…

In particular case of China given the trade imbalance and the currency peg doesn't really look like US has a net gain from current setup. US position in most categories in China is very modest.

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

#327

Post by mywittyname » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:30 PM UTC

ben174 wrote: post #177

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…

You can find more detail on how he plans to make Mexico pay for the wall here: https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Pay_for_the_Wall.pdf Specifically, he will threaten to disallow wire transfer of money from US to Mexico by non-citizens. Since that is a revenue source they greatly depend on, he suggests they'd rather fund the building of the wall. If they agree to fund the wall, then the ban on transfers will go away.

So Mexicans start using bitcoin, amazon gift cards, or something like that. Or we end up with "underground banks" that can effectively transfer money across the border without actually doing so, i.e., you buy a digital good at a physical location in the US, transfer it to a relative in Mexico, who then sells it back to the company at a slight discount for cash (which, as a side-effect, would be a great way to launder drug money).

Or I guess, you bounce money through Belize or something.

Either way, it doesn't sound very effective.

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

#328

Post by chrismeller » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:31 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…

Most of them being at the state and local level sounds more like the recession (and corresponding decrease in tax revenues the following years) catching up with state and local governments that actually have to stick to a budget.

I'm not sure what the breakdown of "more recently at the Federal level" is, but it doesn't sound very pro-Obama in terms of your argument, particularly since Trump is talking about the Federal government.

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

#329

Post by sheepz » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:31 PM UTC

facetube wrote: post #147

natmaster wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Can you explain what this means then? "All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered “extreme vetting""

This shouldn't be downvoted. This is a critical question for a candidate who's pledged to expand religious discrimination and torture.

could you elaborate on the 'more torture' promise?

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

#330

Post by dougmany » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:32 PM UTC

I am surprised nobody mentioned

> cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities

>Some of the 31 American cities are Los Angeles (the first since 1979); Washington, D.C.; New York City (see also Illegal immigration in New York City); Jersey City; Berkeley, California; Coachella, California; Philadelphia; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Jose; Oakland; Salt Lake City; Dallas; Houston; Detroit; Chicago; Salinas, California; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven; Somerville; Cambridge; and Portland, Maine.