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

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

#561

Post by givinguflac » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 1:41 AM UTC

albinofrenchy wrote: post #215

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?

> why did they allow the president to run up more national debt than all presidents prior...combined This isn't true even on the face of it; it went up from ~10 trillion to ~18 trillion. And aside from that; the national debt exploded due to the economic collapse that happened months before Obama was sworn in. The accusation is wrong on the facts and disingenuous.

Yeah, I agree but unfortunately anyone who says that usually isn't going to be swayed in the face of objective fact. People act like the 2008 crash just happened spontaneously because Obama was elected, ignoring the shit show of the prior decade.

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

#562

Post by nickpsecurity » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 1:41 AM UTC

pvelagal wrote: post #390

nickpsecurity wrote: post #181

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…

"7.Discourage offshoring. Should've been doing that along with maintaining a strong industrial base domestically. A huge chunk of our economy is financial engineering. Need more real stuff." I am from India, and here is my observation. Why do American voters expect their "politicians"(be it democrat/republican) to stop offshoring, when these guys seem to have absolutely have no control over individual companies doing…

" Why do American voters expect their "politicians"(be it democrat/republican) to stop offshoring, when these guys seem to have absolutely have no control over individual companies doing that"

They do have quite a bit of control. The companies are doing it primarily because they lobbied politicians to pass laws and treaties to make it easier for them in the first place. Such things can be reversed although the consequences will be huge. Shouldn't be done suddenly which is what I don't like about what he'll probably do.

Far as voter expectations, those against globalization see the government there to meet their needs. This includes protecting their jobs and wages. The offshoring has been negative for those here while positive for them elsewhere (eg India). Incentivizing companies to hire Americans and pay them well increases quality of life here plus gives us stronger, internal economy.

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

#563

Post by gnodar » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 1:41 AM UTC

Figs wrote: post #191

CountSessine wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is literally handing Russia and China the keys to the global economy Well, ok. Aside from the misuse of literally , that's certainly a metaphor I haven't heard being applied to this problem domain before...

So many people used 'literally' sarcastically and hyperbolically, that it has literally taken on the additional meaning in most dictionaries. :| http://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-liter...

I'm fine with words gaining additional definitions due to how they are popular used, but when a word is defined as one thing, and the exact opposite of that same thing, and both definitions can be equally valid within the context of the same sentence, then that's literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

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

#564

Post by shostack » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 1:45 AM UTC

finid wrote: post #360

Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country of Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a two-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a five-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering for those with felo…

And us tax payers picking up the bill for those stays in Federal prison is interesting as well. If the argument is they are costing taxpayers money in the form of jobs, isn't costing taxpayers money from paying for prison similar?

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

#565

Post by serge2k » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 1:45 AM UTC

melling wrote: post #318

threeseed wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Would that qualify as ignorant

That wouldn't make them ignorant, it would make them something else.

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

#566

Post by serge2k » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 1:45 AM UTC

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…

I think this is misleading. Certainly he's evidence of those things, but I don't think he won because of it.

His message appealed to people in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Yes, it's pretty sad that people were willing to vote for him despite the racism, sexism, and general demeanor. Did many really vote for that, or did they vote to get out of NAFTA and introduce protectionism under the idea that they might get some of their former glory back. They hear MAGA and think back to when Detroit had the highest average income in the country. When Flint didn't have poison in the water. It's about you first, others second. It's a powerful message, one that people who don't support trump seemed to fail to recognize under all the absolutely horrible awful things constantly coming at us.

Compare that to Hillary basically saying "meh, they'll vote for me". How much extra effort would it have taken to keep those 3 states democrat.

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

#567

Post by TheSpiceIsLife » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 1:45 AM UTC

Figs wrote: post #191

CountSessine wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is literally handing Russia and China the keys to the global economy Well, ok. Aside from the misuse of literally , that's certainly a metaphor I haven't heard being applied to this problem domain before...

So many people used 'literally' sarcastically and hyperbolically, that it has literally taken on the additional meaning in most dictionaries. :| http://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-liter...

As someone pointed out to me recently, literally has had that meaning since at least when Shakespeare was pushing a quill around.

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

#568

Post by oceanswave » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 1:47 AM UTC

theptip wrote: post #492

> FOURTH, a five-year ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service. > FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government. > SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections. Can't see a reason to complain about any of these (though I've posted objections in other threads about other measures,…

Any time you enact a ban on potential employment of a person, your run into a bunch of hairy issues. Not to mention the required governmental oversight to ensure this is enforced

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

#569

Post by anondon » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 1:47 AM UTC

His stand on climate change scares me.

What can the public do to prevent him from opening energy reserves and backing out of climate change agreements?

Are there efforts going on to prevent this?

Building a wall along the Mexican border...I don't see the thinking behind the decision.

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

#570

Post by shostack » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 1:47 AM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #498

usaphp wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "It's pretty clear he was never a good businessman." Don't you find it silly to call a person with a net worth of $4 billion "not a good businessman" keeping in mind that he made this money doing business

Had he taken the money he was lent or given at the start of his business career, and invested it into an index fund instead of doing his attempts at business, he would now have a net worth of $12 billion instead of $4 billion. He did far, far worse as a businessman than he would have had he done nothing. Based on that alone, I can call him not a good businessman.

Interesting... Hadn't heard that before, source?