Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

assets.donaldjtrump.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 1001 posts

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

#421

Post by arcticfox »

manicdee wrote: post #369
arcticfox wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a little harsh. There's no first principle that the average citizen should know that says "clean coal" isn't possible. In fact, in 5-10 minutes of specifically looking at the topic I still don't see why you're mocking the concept.

Simple thermodynamics. We get energy from coal by burning it then extracting some of the heat. The waste products are basically carbon dioxide and heat. Clean coal is about capturing that carbon dioxide, which means spending energy to separate the CO2 from other gasses, then liquefy it. This sequestration process costs about 30% of the energy originally extracted from the coal. I fully support clean coal since it inc…

Sure, not ideal, but as long as there's nothing that says "you must spend as much or more energy to separate and sequester harmful by-products than you get from the reaction" we shouldn't mock people for at least entertaining the idea. 30% sounds like a reasonable number, interesting to know.

Whether that's a commercially viable amount or not, I have no idea. And your last point, I agree with. We should certainly make the coal industry include externalities in their price as much as feasible, making for a (more) fair energy market.

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

#422

Post by cglace »

mikeash wrote: post #255
ainot wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you explain Obamacare? That would be cool. Thanks.

Buy health insurance if you don't get it from your employer. We'll help you pay for it if you don't make a ton of money.

After I left my job I was making too little to receive a subsidy. You have to fall into the sweet spot to get a subsidy.

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

#423

Post by berdario »

oldmanjay wrote: post #324
ainot wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

So you're saying that it's perfectly normal for a non-racist person to support a candidate who openly argued for deporting huge swaths of honest workers and enforce by law racial and religious discrimination?

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

#424

Post by gizmo385 »

rocqua wrote: post #277
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.

Wouldn't those lobbying regulations (blocking federal employees from lobbying) violate the first amendment? Wouldn't that deny an entire political class of people from being able to participate in the political process?

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

#425

Post by dragonwriter »

yolesaber wrote: post #209
ainot wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

>High brow smack (condescension) like that and "basket of deplorables" are what America revolted against. Actually, the majority of Americans agreed with Hillary Clinton. She won the popular vote by over a million votes. We just use an outdated system built to appease slaveholders that does not necessarily represent the bulk will of the people. Trump won on a technicality of our (antiquated and frankly awful) system,…

> Actually, the majority of Americans agreed with Hillary Clinton

A plurality did, not a majority.

But still more than went with any individual alternative.

> Trump won on a technicality of our (antiquated and frankly awful) system, not on a mandate.

It's not so much antiquated as evil; it's designed specifically to magnify the power of voters in states with people counted for assigning representation that don't vote (primarily to secure slavery, but its continued to reward other forms of disenfranchisement since.)

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

#426

Post by grzm »

dragonwriter wrote: post #425
yolesaber wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>High brow smack (condescension) like that and "basket of deplorables" are what America revolted against. Actually, the majority of Americans agreed with Hillary Clinton. She won the popular vote by over a million votes. We just use an outdated system built to appease slaveholders that does not necessarily represent the bulk will of the people. Trump won on a technicality of our (antiquated and frankly awful) system,…

> Actually, the majority of Americans agreed with Hillary Clinton A plurality did, not a majority. But still more than went with any individual alternative. > Trump won on a technicality of our (antiquated and frankly awful) system, not on a mandate. It's not so much antiquated as evil; it's designed specifically to magnify the power of voters in states with people counted for assigning representation that don't vote…

"A plurality did, not a majority."

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to look up the difference :)

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

#427

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

stevesearer wrote: post #211
mozumder wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get the appeal of term limits on Congress. Why would you vote for an amateur politician instead of a professional career politician? Aren't career politicians better than amateur politicians? If a politician is doing a good job, why would you artificially limit their term? The branch of government with the highest approval rate is the Judicial branch, where Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life.

The appeal is that it would make being a career politician impossible and that term-limited congress would therefore act out of interest for their constituents rather than themselves. But you're right that it would also prevent good politicians from staying. Another proposal which could have a similar effect would be to drastically increase the number of representatives so that each one represents a smaller number of…

> therefore act out of interest for their constituents rather than themselves.

I don't see how that follows. Wouldn't the limit encourage a congressional rep to cravenly maximize whatever personal benefits they can once they're in their final term? They don't need to fear re-election.

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

#428

Post by ant6n »

oldmanjay wrote: post #324
ainot wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It appears many people are embracing these unacceptable-isms. How is it then bad to call them our on it?

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

#429

Post by matt4077 »

blablabla123 wrote: post #351
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…

>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. I think that's the reason Trump becomes president of the US. It may sound ridiculous to you but he is 100% correct with that point. Everybody knows that there are too many government regulation…

Nobody agrees on thet, except in the very narrow definition of everyone knowing at least one regulation they'd personally abolish (the lefty choosing marijuana, the right "all of them")

I've investigated the same complaint for EU law and all you can find is bizarre propaganda making ridiculous claims in bad faith – they make the regs sound absurd, but you can find out the real purpose within half a minute of googling.

Famous example: requiring Cucumbers (bananas etc.) to conform to a certain shape, including curvature for different quality grades. Reasoning: the retail industry wanted it (they couldn't agree on a common standard), it helps trade by establishing standard grades. It's also been repealed as a result of the populist pressure, but by then everyone had been using it and they just continued.

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

#430

Post by stcredzero »

arcticfox wrote: post #353
stcredzero wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that the term "clean coal" can be bandied about with a straight face says something about the state of science education of the general public. (Pretty much the same knowledge needed to instantly realize that various wind/solar operated water-from-air devices and Solar Freakin Roadways aren't viable from back of the envelope calcs.)

I think that's a little harsh. There's no first principle that the average citizen should know that says "clean coal" isn't possible. In fact, in 5-10 minutes of specifically looking at the topic I still don't see why you're mocking the concept.

I think that's a little harsh. There's no first principle that the average citizen should know that says "clean coal" isn't possible.

The average US citizen probably knows that burning carbon-based fuels re-forms molecular bonds, in such a way that the resulting stuff (CO2 and water) embodies much lower energy. Just start applying that concept to the notion of capturing that carbon. The result is that you're going to wind up with a lot less usable energy, or that the stuff you wind up combining the carbon with embodies even less energy than the oxygen. But since coal is already one of the cheapest chemical fuels around, what in the world will that be?

In other words: Basic Thermodynamics. Unfortunately it's true: The average US citizen doesn't know enough basic thermodynamics to rule out obvious boondoggles. That's about the level of gullibility of a 19th century person who buys snake oil.

Post reply on HN