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

731–740 of 1001 posts

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

#731

Post by joeclark77 »

cyberferret wrote: post #145
sushid wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100 day plans are nothing new. [0] It's a way of saying that the new administration will hit the ground running. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_hundred_days

Cool - they do similar things in this country too. Strangely I've never heard it worded as a 'contract' though. 'Plan' and 'Contract' have entirely different connotations.

It is an homage to a 1994 "Contract with America" offered by the Republican Party's campaign for Congress. At that time they had been out of power for 40 years. They knew voters didn't like them, so instead of saying "Like us!", they said, "here, in writing, is what we'll do if you give us your vote". It was a good idea, and they won a major election which permanently changed the balance of power.

Trump similarly faced an electorate that didn't like him or his opponent. She said "Like me!" and he said "Here's what I'll do for you." It was a smart thing to do. A much lower hurdle to have to jump.

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

#732

Post by malz »

dmfdmf wrote: post #198
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?

You beat me to it. Indeed, it was a Dunning-Kruger election but not in the way that the OP meant it. Also, following on your second point, if the Dems are so smart how could they not see that Clinton was a fatally flawed candidate. We'll never know but I think its likely Sanders would have won versus Trump.

I actually think it's unlikely for Sanders, but Biden likely would have won, if he had run. Many many many people saw this coming and begged him to enter the race. Biden has a bond with the blue-collar workers who fled to Trump, he has a compelling life story and is free of any clintonian scandals.

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

#733

Post by math0ne »

oceanswave wrote: post #568
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

Yeah I just can't imagine how this could be enforced.

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

#734

Post by webXL »

riskable wrote: post #376
SolarUpNote wrote: post #208

Replace health insurance with health savings accounts?

What's funny about this is that health savings accounts are really just a discount program based on your tax bracket . The higher your tax bracket the bigger the discount. So in other words, the richer you are the more you'll save with a health savings account. So if Trump pulls off his "huge tax cuts" he'll be undermining his plan for health savings accounts. Classic Trump cognitive dissonance.

So what if someone in the 33% bracket can potentially save up to 8% more than someone in the 25% bracket, they're paying much higher on AGI! And when the rates are reduced so there's a lower incentive to use the accounts, it still can be saved/invested and grow tax-free and gains can even be spent tax free if used on qualified medical expenses. That's the bigger incentive IMO.

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

#735

Post by SMUx »

postcarnival wrote: post #679
josho wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump railed against the system that allowed politicians to be bought. It turns out his solution is to term limit congress. Sounds like treating a symptom not the root cause.

so what, then let's offer solutions and try to get them enacted? why all the armchair bitching on this site as if everyone is an expert just because they write code? what he did is nothing short of monumental and he WANTS to help America. If everyone is so damn smart then get involved and suggest changes. It's not like he's a fucking robot that is going to sit back and count how many marble statues he has in his gard…

I understand the sentiment but comments like this detract from the value of this community.

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

#736

Post by ViViDboarder »

zaphods-towel wrote: post #654
finid wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A reasonable term limit has to be in place. A person who has been in the Senate since 1986, like John McCain, should have been out of there if term limits were in place. Thirty years is a long time to be elected, re-elected and re-elected and ...

I don't see what the problem is with that? The term limits on the president are in place because he has such an inordinate amount of power. I am concerned about a president trying to seize non-democratic power. Not so for a Senator. Can you explain more about why you think reps need term limits?

Yup. I'd rather see a term limit in the Supreme Court. Doubt that's going to happen any time soon...

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

#737

Post by farright »

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…

And yet if the rule were "for every new javascript framework, 2 existing frameworks must be eliminated" HN would be cheering.

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

#738

Post by malz »

cyberferret wrote: post #68
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…

That one popped out at me too - 1 in 2 out?? It's not like decluttering a house - these are the fundamental building blocks of society...

For a "law and order" candidate it's also curious to propose removing laws. Of course, in his mind the necessary laws are those that constrain personal behavior (drugs, vice, abortion). The laws to repeal will be those that "cost jobs" by protecting worker safety, consumers, or the environment.

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

#739

Post by heartbreak »

seibelj wrote: post #470
ben174 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I do not support building a wall, nor building a wall and getting Mexico to pay for it. However, if I was trying to get Mexico to pay for the wall, gosh darn it this document explains coherently how to do it! You can't deny that the administration is goal-oriented.

Not to sound like a "bleeding heart" liberal, but understand that the $24b per year in money that flows into Mexico from individuals living in the U.S. is money that goes to their families. The document even goes so far as to remind the reader that there is no social safety net in Mexico, which will compound the effect of cutting off income from family members living in the U.S.

Is that who we are?

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

#740

Post by anonbanker »

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.

When exchanging pesos is outlawed, only outlaws will exchange pesos.
Post reply on HN