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

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

#651

Post by jmcqk6 » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 3:08 AM UTC

tent wrote: post #582

kstrauser wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more important aspect is preventing local police from having to act as immigration agents. That has a very real effect on crime: illegal immigrants don't have to be afraid of talking to police. I think we're safer when everyone feels free to report crimes and act as witnesses.

I agree with your message about safety, but it is important to keep in mind that illegal immigrants are inherently breaking the law. We should not encourage keeping them safe from deportation.

It is not a criminal offense to be in the country unlawfully. It gets kind of complicated, but here is a useful resource: http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/07/is-illegal-immigrat...

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

#652

Post by tootie » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 3:09 AM UTC

novalis78 wrote: post #490

gshulegaard wrote: post #259

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.

It's nonsense. Measure regulatory burden by number of rules is absolutely arbitrary.

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

#653

Post by cobookman » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 3:09 AM UTC

dlp211 wrote: post #497

dragthor wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Cancel UN climate payments, use money instead on America water and environmental issues. Sounds good to me. Let China and India clean up their own mess, while we clean up our messes. - Yes. Too many regulations by unelected bureaucrats. Sounds good to me. I'd rather have one clear and meaningful regulation than two "up for random interpretation." - Yes. Tax cuts for all working people. Let people decide what to do…

> - Yes. Tax cuts for all working people. Let people decide what to do with their own money (spend, save, donate, etc.). The bigger the government, the smaller the individual. A family of 4 with a median household income of $50k/yr pays close to nothing in federal taxes. Tax cuts don't help the people that need it.

depends where you are talking about. A tax cut for a family of four taking home 100k/year in LA or SF goes a long way.

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

#654

Post by zaphods-towel » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 3:10 AM UTC

finid wrote: post #583

waterphone wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad idea that sounds like a good idea until you discover that it actually leads to greater special interest influence because nobody in Congress knows how to do anything so lobbyists just do it for them. http://prospect.org/article/populist-road-hell-term-limits-c...

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?

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

#655

Post by twblalock » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 3:10 AM UTC

gozur88 wrote: post #611

twblalock wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21709923-there-risk-trade... : > He promises to label China a currency manipulator, but the only consequence of that would be that America would have to engage China in talks on the currency’s value, which would have no practical effect. The downside is pissing off China, which the US needs to get along. There is no upside -- China won't change its behavior because of a label.

Chinese officials won't be pissed off. They understand politics. The difficulty will be in keeping a straight face during talks designed to go nowhere.

> Chinese officials won't be pissed off. They understand politics.

Whether or not they are genuinely pissed off, they act offended at the bargaining table and make negotiations more difficult than they might have been. They have been known for doing that kind of thing in the past because it plays very well with the people at home.

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

#656

Post by jonstewart » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 3:11 AM UTC

There's nothing to discuss here. A reaction along the lines of "Well, that doesn't sound so bad, but maybe he ought to think about..." means you're now playing by his rules. This is just Reagan++.

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

#657

Post by FireBeyond » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 3:13 AM UTC

_audakel wrote: post #516

cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama. I think we need some claification on what is "constitutional"

Right, because as it is it seems pretty much synonymous with "things I do not like"

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

#658

Post by zanny » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 3:13 AM UTC

gshulegaard wrote: post #259

jdc0589 wrote: post #122

> FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal This is what I have the biggest problem with. The ONLY WAY we are going to continue making progress towards widespread clean renewable energy is if it is financially beneficial for corporations to continue investing in R&D. Sure, there are s…

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 document contradicts that every other sentence after that. Almost all the bills he proposes are regulations, the executive orders... regulations. He proposes to overturn about a quarter as many things as he wants made law or executive order.

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

#659

Post by zanny » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 3:14 AM UTC

ghufran_syed wrote: post #478

gizmo385 wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't those lobbying regulations (blocking federal employees from lobbying) violate the first amendment? Wouldn't that deny an entire political class of people from being able to participate in the political process?

I assume any such law wouldn't block their speech, just their ability to receive money in exchange for that service

Except under Citizens United money is speech. How is this supposed to not conflict with that decision, unless they mean to clarify Citizens United is that only corporate personhood can use money as speech?

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

#660

Post by throwawaymsft » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 3:17 AM UTC

mywittyname wrote: post #327

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.

So Mexicans start using bitcoin, amazon gift cards, or something like that. Or we end up with "underground banks" that can effectively transfer money across the border without actually doing so, i.e., you buy a digital good at a physical location in the US, transfer it to a relative in Mexico, who then sells it back to the company at a slight discount for cash (which, as a side-effect, would be a great way to launder…

You realize this same logic could seemingly dismiss any regulation (assault weapons, child labor, tax evasion), right?

"People will smuggle illegal guns from abroad. Or buy the parts and assemble them. Or get a machine shop and make them."

A regulation, no matter its aim, does not require 100% compliance to be an effective deterrent. I'm not saying this plan will work, but a generic "people will get around it" argument is not illuminating.