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

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

#801

Post by exergy » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 6:39 AM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #760

blintz wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So then what's your alternative? Would you prefer a system without politicians? What kind of system is that? We must elect trustworthy politicians, we must make it harder for big money to interfere, and we must have faith in our government. It's hard for me to say right now, given our current president-elect, but it's true. There truly is no good alternative to democracy.

Would you prefer a system without politicians? Yes. What kind of system is that? Self-government[1] and/or a stateless society[2]. [1]: https://www.theadvocates.org/ [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society

I'm sorry, but that sounds like the kind of thing an edy 18 year old would say.

There are no examples of 350 million people being governed WITHOUT a government, and for good reasons.

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

#802

Post by baddox » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 6:40 AM UTC

blintz wrote: post #531

Shivetya wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well let us be honest here. Electing politicians hasn't exactly been doing us that much good. If anything we have learned we cannot accept their word at all. I am of the opinion that politicians corrupted themselves by selling their ability to shape the laws that govern the country and decide who is punished and who is rewarded.

So then what's your alternative? Would you prefer a system without politicians? What kind of system is that? We must elect trustworthy politicians, we must make it harder for big money to interfere, and we must have faith in our government. It's hard for me to say right now, given our current president-elect, but it's true. There truly is no good alternative to democracy.

While any such system would obviously be a radical change from our current system, such systems do exist both conceptually and historically, and it's not just stateless societies. The most obvious example is sortition, whereby officials are selected randomly. Again, applying that everywhere overnight is obviously radical, but the idea is fairly sound. It's how jury duty works in the United States, and it's how Athenian democracy (mostly) worked.

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

#803

Post by AnthonyMouse » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 6:41 AM UTC

slicktux wrote: post #667

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is if West Virginia burns coal that causes air pollution and sea level rise in New York, New York can't pass a law against burning coal in West Virginia. Federal laws are needed when a state is externalizing costs and internalizing profits.

Look we can go back and forward and at the end we are both right. . .example, I can say that we doing something about our environment does not make a difference because of countries like China and India's pollution make it over the pacific into our environment. . .

The mechanism for dealing with this between countries is by signing treaties. The mechanism for dealing with this between US states is by passing federal laws.

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

#804

Post by baddox » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 6:43 AM UTC

dgacmu wrote: post #279

nkw wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/711 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/707 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/710 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/46 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2285 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1716E https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1730 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1762 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/…

Some of those can and should be consolidated - but they're not all quite as flippant as you might think. The prohibition of transport of water hyacinth, for example, is because it's a massively bad invasive species: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichhornia_crassipes#United_St... Sure, it too should probably be consolidated - perhaps under the Lacey act or the Plant Protection Act or Alien Species Prevention and Enfor…

> You can probably imagine that the letter carrier uniform one may have been in response to fraud.

I would expect there to already be a federal law prohibiting fraud.

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

#805

Post by bduerst » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 6:47 AM UTC

tribune wrote: post #717

bduerst wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a lie. Trump courted and accepted money from special interests - there was even a Planet Money podcast on it.

Sure he did - but nearly as much as did Clinton. This election absolutely proved that a candidate can't simple "buy" an election

I disagree. I would argue that his campaign proved otherwise.

Promising to never accept special interest money, only to go on to actively seek out and take it a mere months later, proves that it's necessary to win in an election.

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

#806

Post by bronz » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 6:48 AM UTC

why would mexico pay for the wall? 9 out of 10 times when someone asks this question they are not aware of the fact that we had a $58 billion trade deficit with mexico in 2015. trumps proposal is to use this and all the other leverage we have over mexico to get them to pay for the wall. at first glance it seems that it would be very much in mexicos best financial interest to cooperate, actually. most liberals think he just says that mexico will build the wall and that he does not offer any kind of plan or explanation. this is because they never actually confirm their presumptions. im not saying that his plan is great or will even work. but it is a plan and although it is unconventional, it is also plausible.

the most concerning aspect of trumps policies is that regarding climate. but thankfully renewable energy is now well on its way. its not a fragile infant anymore -- it will survive trump if not explode into popularity under trump despite his stance on the environment.

the trump movement was a grass roots movement. People voted for him because he said that he will stop companies from outsourcing their work with simple tax implementations. they lifted him from obscurity and into the presidency. take a look at the other times he ran and you can see what his campaign would have been like without the grass roots element: nothing. trump would not be president if people in the mid-west had good employment and a sense of financial security.

and as for the sexual assault thing, i would rather have trump be elected than see bill clinton back in the white house because bill clinton is literally a rapist. i know it may come as a huge shock for liberals -- being a liberal it was a huge shock to me -- but its true. i know this is not the most reputable source but before you disagree with me i would like you to watch this video of a woman recounting the event.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHh73fkDUIs

and another

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug7diBO3XYY

i very much doubt that someone who could easily make a nice living in hollywood as one of the best actors in the world would instead decide to publicly accuse one of the most powerful men in the world of one of the worst crimes possible.

heres an article from npr (one of the most liberal new organizations on the planet) addressing the issue and offering absolutely no evidence to contradict it.

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/09/497291071/a-brief-history-of-j...

if anyone can point to evidence that proves her wrong then please let me know. im impartial.

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

#807

Post by baddox » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 6:48 AM UTC

jhpriestley wrote: post #251

nkw wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/711 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/707 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/710 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/46 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2285 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1716E https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1730 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1762 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/…

These regulations seem completely reasonable. Several are protecting government-related insignia such as the postal uniform, and presumably serve a similar purpose to trademark law. Then you have a ban on transporting an invasive species (water hyacinth), restriction on the mailing of tobacco (often mailed to avoid taxes or tariffs), a ban on unregistered submarines (this isn't some ridiculous idea, drug smugglers ha…

Even if the concept is reasonable, it seems like these specifics should be treated as data and not their own separate law. Just have laws about trademarks, then store all the specific trademarks (including Smokey the Bear, 4-H, etc.) in the trademark registry. Likewise, there should be a law about invasive species, and a database of the actual species that are covered.

The trouble with listing a dozen very specific laws like this and considering them all reasonable is this: what if the list had 1,000 items? 10,000? And with no way to know which are the actual meaty laws (like trademark law) and which are just specific instances of said laws (like Smokey the Bear).

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

#808

Post by AnthonyMouse » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 6:49 AM UTC

tropo wrote: post #682

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is if West Virginia burns coal that causes air pollution and sea level rise in New York, New York can't pass a law against burning coal in West Virginia. Federal laws are needed when a state is externalizing costs and internalizing profits.

The same goes for the world. If we don't burn the stuff, the price will go down. Some other country will burn it. We might as well have a nice economy while the world burns. There is no stopping this train.

> If we don't burn the stuff, the price will go down.

Not if the tax is on removing it from the ground to begin with. And we could issue sanctions on anyone who doesn't impose the same tax in their own country.

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

#809

Post by Sacho » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 6:50 AM UTC

SilasX wrote: post #776

randiantech wrote: post #727

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, that "if one created, two removed" was a law imposed by a Principal Software Architect to me and my team regarding apps and apis as part of a rationalization program. "If you create this new API, make sure to remove at least two". I have to say, after two years there, that helped a lot to reduce redundancy and complexity. But well, apps and api are not the same of public policies... who knows.

But "aim for simplicity" is a good enough rule by itself, which isn't further enhanced by some "2 for 1" heuristic. On top of that, "regulation count" is not a natural category, since one regulation can specify an arbitrary number of things. If you replace A) No smoking and B) no littering with C) No smoking or littering, have you changed anything substantive? You have not. Regulation complexity, of course, is a natu…

The difference is that you operate in a cooperative environment(well, most of the time) within your team. The president operates in an antagonistic environment by default - even if Congress is controlled by the same party, the two sides of government(executive/legislative) are supposed to keep each other in balance.

I otherwise agree that the measure is too simple.

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

#810

Post by IkmoIkmo » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 6:51 AM UTC

tribune wrote: post #717

bduerst wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a lie. Trump courted and accepted money from special interests - there was even a Planet Money podcast on it.

Sure he did - but nearly as much as did Clinton. This election absolutely proved that a candidate can't simple "buy" an election

Well the story to me is basically: money plays a gigantic factor and allows you to win elections, because it gives you exposure.

You can beat that moneyed system if you happen to be an eccentric billionaire, who happens to have been a household name for decades, who will say anything, racist, misogynistic, hateful, lies and false promises, to get the exposure to get elected despite not paying for it.

Just about anything else and you need money to get exposure, get on television, get yourself in the spotlight. He just didn't happen to have needed money to get exposure, but that's an exception, in exceptional circumstances, and limits potential candidates to those with exceptional media/wealth backgrounds. That's not a model that makes sense to sustain.