551–560 of 1001 posts
He's calling executive actions unconstitutional. Let's hope he sticks to that.
No, it's describing the actions he's going to repeal. "Repeal those actions which were unconstitutional", not "repeal the actions, which are unconstitutional".
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The more people insist it was racists and sexists behind the vote, the more they miss the point. Part of the Trump vote was reacting sharply to the labeling + ridicule technique.
There are other options. Learn more about why they feel the way they do, understand them. These are (most of our) countrymen, fellow humans at the very least.
Education, understanding, compassion. Not ridicule.
This is actually pretty good and what I was expecting of him once he got to stop the smear campaigns that are U.S. elections. Now, let me cross-reference a few that might be good against what he's said or done in the past where I think he might try to make them happen with a possibility they will. 1. Renegotiate NAFTA and TPP. I opposed both as they were mainly just for the richest to get richer moving jobs & playing…
> I have doubts climate change strategies will work at all given how they're partial with lots of noncompliance. Meanwhile, those infrastructure aren't getting much support. Lesser of two evils. Sorry, but once the worst effects of climate change kick in, your infrastructure won't last terribly long at all.
How did I not see this before the election (even if it came out 102316 as evidenced in the file name)? Why did NYT/Guardian/all of the news sites that I regularly visit not report this? This is a clear policy proposal, contrary to everything I had read that said he had no clear plan.
- Did you check out either candidate's websites?
- Were you aware of Hillary's equivalent?[0] Was this reported in the news sites you frequent?
[0]: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
I'm asking the questions honestly. I did know of Trump's contract (though I don't remember how I came across it), and didn't look at the Clinton campaign site. I don't recall anything in the news about either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Term limits won't do a damn thing to curtail lobbying. Lobbyists love having lots of fresh blood just looking to make a quick buck flooding the legislature. The limits create a constantly revolving legislature that is easier to manipulate and will in general do a poorer job. If he really cared, we'd see something on campaign finance reform; but alas, he doesn't actually want to get money out of politics.
On the other hand, people who can't run for reelection have no reason to spend all their time raising money.
This is actually pretty good and what I was expecting of him once he got to stop the smear campaigns that are U.S. elections. Now, let me cross-reference a few that might be good against what he's said or done in the past where I think he might try to make them happen with a possibility they will. 1. Renegotiate NAFTA and TPP. I opposed both as they were mainly just for the richest to get richer moving jobs & playing…
Yeah, you get child and elder care if you make enough money to owe enough taxes to cover those bills. Poor? Working minimum wage? Sorry, I guess your kid gets to stay at home with gramma to kill two birds with one stone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know: > THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated. Is scariest to me given a Republican controlled Congress. The one sided control makes me nervous.
This is fantastic. That's exactly how it should be. Otherwise over decades you end up with regulations that stifle all forms of entrepreneurship and creativity.
Leave nafta? There doesn't seem to be a very thorough analysis on the effect of this.... You can't just make changes to economic policy and hope for the best - there are far and wide impacts to making changes like this.
Obviously you can, you mean shouldn't. I'm sure wisdom will prevail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The wall is ridiculous in itself though. I'm looking forward to see what Donald Trump's wall does when they encounter Santa Elena Canyon. ( https://www.nps.gov/bibe/planyourvisit/secyn.htm )
Looks like the canyon would be a natural barrier. But if you have a small gap it seems like you could just build some guard posts at that gap.
Obviously I'm "sticking to the metaphor", but legitimately that Big Bend area is one of those reminders that this "wall" concept is ridiculous for other reasons. That area and others along the border awfully remote, which will make managing the infrastructure and obtaining people to work there a headache. It will also make building the actual infrastructure extremely challenging and probably quite expensive. Not that Trump would care, but it's certainly not an environmentally friendly proposal either.
If the economy is such where Mexicans still want to migrate, there's other possibilities. No wall will secure the sea for instance, unless you build that "wall" around the entire Gulf of Mexico and Pacific Ocean. (Beachgoers won't be happy about that.) The wall does not stop exploitation methods such as visa overstays or smuggling in the heavier trafficked borders. Even the Berlin Wall -- well more fortified than any 2,000 mile could ever be -- was breached 5,000 times in its history, so there's a good chance that even these remote areas might get some activity.
How much is America willing to pay for "a wall" to stop the immigrants? Enough to wreck the economy? Well, that's one sure way to prevent Mexicans from crossing over. :)
