261–270 of 1001 posts
Apart from the content, why is it even called a "contract"? There's no terms and obligations for the "American voter" in there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well I'm glad "clear and concise to your eye" is the rubric by which we're grading policy. Or maybe this isn't about the actual policy, you just want complex reality to be boiled down in a way that's easily digestible?
Could you explain Obamacare? That would be cool. Thanks.
There you go. Because you can't read: * There is in an individual mandate for insurance, you must have it, or you get hit with a tax penalty.
If you can afford insurance, we'll set up exchanges, and offer a subsidy to help offset the cost.
Employers over a certain size must offer healthcare.
* You can't drop people for preexisting conditions.
* You have to keep people on until age 27.
I can go on, but there's more.
If you're going to through out nonsense for premiums, I'll remind you that subsidies go up, and premiums always go up regardless of the law.
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…
I don't get the appeal of term limits on Congress. Why would you vote for an amateur politician instead of a professional career politician? Aren't career politicians better than amateur politicians? If a politician is doing a good job, why would you artificially limit their term? The branch of government with the highest approval rate is the Judicial branch, where Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is this flagged? Someone please provide a reason. Thanks.
we already had a "trump won the election" thread. Isn't that enough US politics on HN for the day? This is not new, it was published weeks ago. If i wanted to see more election stuff i'd go to reddit. or just about anywhere else on the internet today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Completely ignorant position. Market based solutions only work if the market is fair i.e. all players are subject to the same conditions. The problem is (a) fossil fuels have large subsidies all up/down the chain and (b) fossil fuels do not have a surcharge for their impact on the environment.
Fossil fuels aren't going to get that surcharge under the Republicans. You have to play the hand you're dealt, or whine about it, telling everyone how ignorant they are. In another decade, when the Democrats take Presidency or the Senate, maybe you'll get some offsetting charges. Of course, we'll have lost a decade and the problem will be much worse, if no forward progress is made. Solar hasn't gotten cheap enough th…
There are still numerous opportunities for people to convince Republicans to start believing in climate change and making the energy market fair and equitable to allow renewable technologies to compete. Look at what is happening with solar panels when their subsidies are removed. It's not pretty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It seems the thing to do would be higher interns to start scouring for every "A married woman shall not chop down a birchwood tree on the day of her wedding while wearing her bridal gown" style law. Sure, but how many of those exist at a federal level? Those are often city, county and sometimes state regulations.
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/…
To me, this sounds like a quarantine law. All countries have these, e.g. it is not allowed to transport certain meat products or other foods across German borders.
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1716E
Once again, a "standard" anti-trafficking law.
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/39
What? Such things exist? Are these "traffic signal preemption transmitter" devices used in e.g. ambulances?
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2285
A ban on "drug subs", commonly used on the southern border these days. Gangs actually manufacture high-sea-worthy subs in the jungle.
> Yes the "repeal two regulations before imposing one" is just a gimmick, but there are an insane number of federal laws and regulations that are, at best, unneeded.
Unfortunately, you picked out the worst examples of "unneeded" laws.
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/…
I clicked on one of these at random ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1730 ). This is a perfectly reasonable law that I would not want to see repealed. Don't you agree that it's bad for people to be allowed to impersonate mail carriers? It would facilitate identity theft through rifling mailboxes, make burglary easier, etc. What's wrong with that law?