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

Post by brandon272 » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 12:43 AM UTC

yolesaber wrote: post #230

davemel37 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. When buying a house, wouldnt you try to negotiate for seller concessions like paying for repairs? Trumps wall comments were always in conjunction with discussing the massive trade deficit with Mexico. If we are in a stronger position to negotiate with Mexico, why wouldnt we neg…

>If you really think about it. We only need this wall because of Mexico, so why should we pay if we dont have to? If you really think about it, we don't need the wall at all because people will just dig holes underneath it, like they have with all the other walls and fencing we have built. 1,954 miles is a long way to go - https://theintercept.com/2016/10/18/best-of-luck-with-the-wa...

Post by akiselev » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 12:44 AM UTC

chrismeller wrote: post #328

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 Feder…

Post by skywhopper » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 12:45 AM UTC

sean_patel wrote: post #398

dougmany wrote: post #330

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, Californi…

Despite being an independent left leaning liberal, I welcome this proposal, if they can actually implement it. I see wide-spread exploitation of the "Sanctuary City" Law in San Francisco, especially in the Restaurants, Construction site and Janitorial jobs. The Sanctuary Law, for those that don't know, forbids the Feds from asking employers about the immigration status of the employees / workers. This has caused 100s…

Post by Dagwoodie » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 12:45 AM UTC

matt4077 wrote: post #429

blablabla123 wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Post by tdaltonc » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 12:45 AM UTC

darawk wrote: post #158

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. IMO this is the best thing in there. The burden of complex legislation is incredible, and there are tens of thousands of pages that could be simplified and/or removed entirely. It'd be a very lon…