Donald Trump's Contract with the American Voter [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf <comment><USER2> 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 climate change accords and the opening up of additional shale/gas/etc resources. We really don't need to be heading in that direction, energy-wise.

<comment><USER3> There's a lot of room to wonder about his trustworthiness given his record as a businessman, but even in this document, he doesn't address campaign finance reform. Congressional term-limits just consolidate power in the moneyed elites --the problems _is not just_ the politicians, it's who corrupted them. If anything, this is a document to passify those moneyed interests who, unlike say Sheldon Adelson, worry about a Trump presidency.

Everything I've seen so far suggests Trump isn't what blue-collar voters ordered for.

<comment><USER4> 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.

<comment><USER5> At some point you have to stop cutting. You can't go thus forever.

<comment><USER6> The US code is 22 million words. [1] is a good visualization of it. I'd wager there are tons of redundancies that could be refactored. That being said, I'd also wager that careful refactoring is not on DJT's mind. More slash-and-burn the parts he doesn't like.

[1] [https://twitter.com/harlanyu/status/165184504527462400/photo...](https://twitter.com/harlanyu/status/165184504527462400/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

<comment><USER7> The US Code is law, not regulation, and so is completely irrelevant here. What you want to cite is the Code of Federal Regulations, which is much larger than the U.S. Code.

Of course you provide no reason at all except an unsupported assumption to believe that the size of the completely wrong thing that you cite is an indicator of unnecessary complexity, and the fact that you cite the completely wrong thing is a pretty good sign that you have zero knowledge of the domain from which to form a judgement.

<comment><USER6> I spoke in generalities. You are absolutely correct. I have no claim to being an expert or even a layman. What I do know is that once a description of any thing exceeds a certain threshold, there are bound to be redundancies. Think of it in terms of codebases for large softwares. The Linux kernel is approaching 20 MLoCs. I'd wager heavily on there being a different architecture delivering the same functionality with less code to describe it. Proving it would be a tremendously hard task, far outweighing any gain from such a bet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'll bet he doesn't know that the pubic sector shrank more under Obama than the previous presidents:

"The public sector grew during Mr. Carter's term (up 1,304,000), during Mr. Reagan's terms (up 1,414,000), during Mr. G.H.W. Bush's term (up 1,127,000), during Mr. Clinton's terms (up 1,934,000), and during Mr. G.W. Bush's terms (up 1,744,000 jobs).

However the public sector has declined significantly since Mr. Obama took office (down 668,000 jobs). These job losses have mostly been at the state and local level, but more recently at the Federal level. This has been a significant drag on overall employment." [1]

I'll be surprised if he gets half these things done in the next 4 yrs, though most are so vague it's not clear what 'done' would mean.

[1] [http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/10/public-and- private...](http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/10/public-and-private- sector-payroll-jobs.html)

<comment><USER9> Most of them being at the state and local level sounds more like the recession (and corresponding decrease in tax revenues the following years) catching up with state and local governments that actually have to stick to a budget.

I'm not sure what the breakdown of "more recently at the Federal level" is, but it doesn't sound very pro-Obama in terms of your argument, particularly since Trump is talking about the Federal government.

<comment><USER10> Between a quarter to half of California's state budget comes from the federal government [1] and I'm guessing the same is true for most states. With that much money coming from the federal government, it's a muddy distinction.

One of the primary argument against the federal government is the disconnect from local needs but most of the money is tied to federal mandates anyway (for example, the feds threatened road infrastructure funding to get the last few states to pass the 21 year alcohol age limit and DOE funding is tied to CORE). As a result the state/federal distinction isn't very precise.

[1] [https://ballotpedia.org/California_state_budget_and_finances](https://ballotpedia.org/California_state_budget_and_finances)

<comment><USER11> > I'm guessing the same is true for most states.

California is actually one of the lowest (42nd). The irony is that states where people vote for small government and lower taxes tend to receive a larger share per capita of federal money.

[https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_aid_to_state_budgets](https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_aid_to_state_budgets)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So he's going to lower taxes on the wealthy, drop taxes on businesses, increase spending on military, destroy our national parks to extract oil, and lay off federal employees.

This is going to help the middle class and the uneducated who are struggling through... magic. None of the lobbying stuff will ever see the light of day. The term limits won't happen. He's going to repeal the "illegal" Obama executive orders but leave the Bush ones in place because... they're illegal but he likes them?

The immigration thing will happen and result in massive backlash if I had to guess. None of the reforms will ever happen because he doesn't have the power to enact any of it, and the Republicans are NEVER going to agree to that when they're currently in power. His justice choice will never in a million years overturn Citizens United which is literally the only affect he could have on political corruption.

<comment><USER13> > A middle-class family will get a 35% tax cut.

I did some back-of-the-envelope calculation to figure how our taxes could change for various income levels for married joint filers. This does not factor in any deductions.

Nobody is getting a 35% tax cut. Tax rate for middle-class families will go down by around 1% only, and taxes will go up for low-income families by 2%. Single tax filers will also see an increase in taxes.

The biggest tax cuts will actually go the highest income earners, tax rate will go down by 6.42% for someone who makes $10 million. Maybe that is what Trump calls the middle-class?

Trump's proposed tax brackets vs current brackets

$18,000 Current: $1,800 (10%) Trump: $2,160 (12%) Change: + $360 (2%)

$36,000 Current: $4,472 (12.42%) Trump: $4,320 (12%) Change: - $152 (0.42%)

$75,000 Current: $10,322 (13.76%) Trump: $9,000 (12%) Change: - $1,322 (1.76%)

$120,000 Current: $21,542 (17.95%) Trump: $20,250 (16.87%) Change: - $1,292 (1.08%)

$250,000 Current: $57,913 (23.16%) Trump: $45,750 (18.3%) Change: - $12,163 (4.86%)

$500,000 Current: $143,665 (28.73%) Trump: $11,1750 (22.35%) Change: - $31,915 (6.38%)

$1 million Current: $341,666 (34.16%) Trump: $293,250 (29.32%) Change: - $48,416 (4.84%)

$10 million Current: $3,905,666 (39.05%) Trump: $3,263,250 (32.63%) Change: - $642,416 (6.42%)

<comment><USER14> Virtually nobody making 10 million a year pays a 39% tax rate. They likely take most of their comp as stock and pay the long term capital gains rate. If they're in finance/VC, they are taking full advantage of carried interest. They have financial planners who structure their portfolio to favor low-tax investments. They form S-Corps and trust funds to defer tax liability, get paid in distributions, write off all sorts of business expenses, use real estate to offset gains with depreciation, carry forward every conceivable loss, tax loss harvest etc. etc. etc. This is how Warren Buffett, Mitt Romney and Trump end up paying < 20% effective rates.

The people hit hardest by "tax the wealthy" politicians are folks making large salaries (engineers, doctors, lawyers...). The mega-wealthy like Mark Zuckerberg make $1 a year in salary. If you really want to go after the wealthy, you need to tax wealth, not ordinary income and go after the complexity of the tax code.

<comment><USER15> Taxing wealth is a _terrible_ idea, because it means _every_ asset has to generate income each year to offset taxes.

<comment><USER16> Why is that bad? Asking purely out of ignorance.

<comment><USER15> Just off the top of my head:

\- It causes wealth to consume it's own base, depreciating all assets faster even in lieu of inflation

\- It disproportionately punishes seniors, who are asset rich and income poor.

\- It encourages the wealthy to move and hide assets offshore just like they do with income.

\- Double taxation: Wealth is already taxed when it is created

\- Punishes asset rich, low income businesses like grocery stores, farms, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > 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 some outliers that will stick with it on principal, but the majority will go where the money is. Cheaper fossil fuels == less investment in renewable energy. Period. This is bad timing given the critical point we are at (so far as we know) regarding climate change.

This is pure short-sightedness motivated by the desire to deliver on his promise of creating jobs.

<comment><USER18> The fact that the term "clean coal" can be bandied about with a straight face says something about the state of science education of the general public. (Pretty much the same knowledge needed to instantly realize that various wind/solar operated water-from-air devices and Solar Freakin Roadways aren't viable from back of the envelope calcs.)

<comment><USER19> "Sunlight is abundant beyond the energy needs of the entire human race". (Los Alamos National Laboratory [[http://www.lanl.gov/discover/publications/1663/2015-may/pero...](http://www.lanl.gov/discover/publications/1663/2015-may/perovskite- power.php)].) This is their back of the envelope calculation.

<comment><USER20> I don't think this is a reflection on the amount of usable sunlight on that hits the surface of the earth. It sounds more like a vague, general statement and isn't backed by calculations in the article.

The late Professor McKay (whose book on information theory and ML is neat by the way) published a great book full of climate back of the envelope calculations, _Whithout the Hot Air_ , which is available online[1]. He clearly disagrees with this statement, as seen in the recap figure on page 103[2].

[1] [http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html](http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html)

[2] [http://www.withouthotair.com/c18/page_103.shtml](http://www.withouthotair.com/c18/page_103.shtml)

<comment><USER21> [http://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/Solar%20FAQs.pdf](http://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/Solar%20FAQs.pdf)

"This theoretical potential represents more energy striking the earth's surface in one and a half hours (480 EJ) than worldwide energy consumption in the year 2001 from all sources combined (430 EJ)."

Not back of envelope. Energy calculations worked through.

<comment><USER22> Isn't 70% or more of the Earth's surface covered in water and thus, quite difficult to build a terrestrial structure upon?

Asking for a friend.

<comment><USER21> Total land area needed to power the world on solar alone: [http://i.imgur.com/Jg31dfw.png](http://i.imgur.com/Jg31dfw.png)

Source: [http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-solar-panels-to- pow...](http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-solar-panels-to-power-the- earth-2015-12)

EDIT: Solar is a better investment than the S&P500. If US corporations were looking for some place to invest those trillions of dollars they won't repatriate [1], seems like renewables would be a perfect fit.

"Eight of the biggest U.S. technology companies added a combined $69 billion to their stockpiled offshore profits over the past year, even as some corporations in other industries felt pressure to bring cash back home.

Microsoft Corp., Apple Inc., Google Inc. and five other tech firms now account for more than a fifth of the $2.10 trillion in profits that U.S. companies are holding overseas, according to a Bloomberg News review of the securities filings of 304 corporations. The total amount held outside the U.S. by the companies was up 8 percent from the previous year, though 58 companies reported smaller stockpiles."

[1] [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-04/u-s- compan...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-04/u-s-companies- are-stashing-2-1-trillion-overseas-to-avoid-taxes)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I am surprised nobody mentioned

> cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities

>Some of the 31 American cities are Los Angeles (the first since 1979); Washington, D.C.; New York City (see also Illegal immigration in New York City); Jersey City; Berkeley, California; Coachella, California; Philadelphia; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Jose; Oakland; Salt Lake City; Dallas; Houston; Detroit; Chicago; Salinas, California; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven; Somerville; Cambridge; and Portland, Maine.

<comment><USER24> Despite being an independent left leaning liberal, I welcome this proposal, if they can actually implement it.

I see wide-spread exploitation of the "Sanctuary City" Law in San Francisco, especially in the Restaurants, Construction site and Janitorial jobs.

The Sanctuary Law, for those that don't know, forbids the Feds from asking employers about the immigration status of the employees / workers. This has caused 100s and 1000s of (mostly mexican and hispanic) undocumented immigrants to arrive and live in Sanctuary Cities (like San Francisco, LA, etc) and strain the local public services, while simultaneously being exploited by their employers.

Most get paid less than minimum wage (some even as low as 8$ / hour instead of the $13.75 min wage in SF), women get abused, sexually harassed etc (in restaurant jobs).

<comment><USER25> And you find that cutting federal funding entirely is a reasonable, proportional response?

<comment><USER26> That is how the federal government pressures states to do _everything_

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Whatever you think about Trump or the policies in that document, it's clearer and more concise than anything I've seen from an elected official.

<comment><USER28> And what are the repercussions if he does NOT achieve all these within the first 100 days? Will he step down? Come up with yet another plan? Contracts usually stipulate this as well.

[Edit: And the downvote brigade strikes - for merely asking a genuine question. I guess this is an indication of the sort of thing that we can expect 'top down' from now on... Stay silent, never question, just obey the mandates... sigh]

[Edit2: And now plenty of upvotes in support after my last edit, as well as useful replies - thank you for restoring my faith in democracy and the fact the people are willing to discuss and deliberate policies in a fair and rational manner.]

<comment><USER29> 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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_hundred_days)

<comment><USER28> 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.

<comment><USER30> Our politicians like to use stupid language that projects confidence beyond what any reasonable person would possess. For example, presidential candidates are constantly referred to as "the next president of the United States," as if the outcome of the election were somehow predetermined.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> 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. Regulations and processes are there for a reason. I'll be very wary if this goes through and I ever have to take any medication that's not established in the market.

<comment><USER32> 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](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.

<comment><USER33> 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 drug money).

Or I guess, you bounce money through Belize or something.

Either way, it doesn't sound very effective.

<comment><USER34> Basically it's like saying you want to ban illegal drugs from entering the country.

<comment><USER35> Except drugs are physical while money doesn't have to be.

<comment><USER34> Which only makes banning transfers additionally backwards

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> There's a lot of really scary stuff in there:

\- Cancel payments to U.N. climate change projects

\- Remove two existing regulations for every new regulation

\- Drastic tax cuts

\- Massive immigration changes

<comment><USER37> \- 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 with their own money (spend, save, donate, etc.). The bigger the government, the smaller the individual.

\- Massive immigration changes? Not really. The pamphlet seems to enforce existing laws regarding criminal illegals.

<comment><USER38> > 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.

Tax cuts are all well and good in a vacuum, but how are we realistically going to pay down the national debt when we enact a massive tax cut on top of a tax rate that is already at historically low levels?

Some people say we can cut all of this government bureaucracy to make up for tax cuts but we'd have to take a figurative axe to all of our federal agencies to get to a point where we can afford a massive tax cut and pay down the national debt.

Otherwise we'd have to enact big cuts to Medicare/Medicaid, defense, and Social Security as well, which people seem loathe to stomach.

<comment><USER39> Medicare and Social Security are funded through their own dedicated payroll tax, not the general income tax. Roosevelt intentionally did it this way to make it impossible to repeal.

My working assumption is that the military is mismanaged, and spends trillions of dollars on wasteful projects. I think you can get a pretty big tax cut by just managing the military better.

<comment><USER40> > I think you can get a pretty big tax cut by just managing the military > better.

I find it interesting that in the US people are comfortable discussing improving military efficiency, yet its taboo to discuss reducing the size of the military.

With a concerted effort it would be a major accomplishment to improve military efficiency by 5-10%. Or you could cut the military budget by 40% and still outspend every other nation's military. Yet, I don't recall ever hearing a candidate suggest reducing the military's budget. Hell even after the cold war didn't spending go up after a brief decline?

<comment><USER41> The US is a superpower because of our military might. A lot of the technological achievements were due to military research. If we reduce our military size to be `reasonable` we loose our status as a super power.

<comment><USER42> > The US is a superpower because of our military might.

IMO, the causality is Economic might --> military might + "soft power" \--> superpower (look at how China's trajectory). Prioritising military over economy in peace times seems short-sighted

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Just so everyone is aware: selling insurance across state lines is code for "gut all insurance regulations". Why did most credit card banks relocate their paper headquarters to SD? Because SD had no usury laws and federal law said laws of your headquarters was all that mattered. It gutted all state regulation of credit cards in one fell swoop.

This is the same approach DJT and the Republicans want to take for health care. Think about that race to the bottom for a minute. Denied and dropped for making a single claim? Good luck, totally legal in [insert small state here].

Without the individual mandate insurance marketplaces don't work so I assume repealing Obamacare will immediately lead to millions of people being thrown off health insurance.

Truly a great victory for America.

<comment><USER26> Is the current system working? My insurance rate has gone from $66 per month for a HDHP to $277 per month 3 years later under the healthcare law for the essentially the same HDHP plan. At that rate of increase I wouldn't be able to afford it at all any more in a few short years so what does it matter?

<comment><USER44> It isn't, but that doesn't mean that any random change will fix it. Your argument is then as follows:

1-We must do something 2-{This} is something 3-Therefore, me must do {This}

You won't find many of us arguing against the first assertion, but I don't think real numbers say that it's insurance regulation that made the prices go up: It's the fact that the risk pools are full of very sick people. While deregulation would separate the sick from the non sick, it would make sure the sick would not be able to afford insurance at all.

The ACA is working great for people that make so little they get subsidies. It's also not a problem for those of use that work at places that compensate us with well over a thousand a month worth insurance. It's the people in the middle that are in trouble: They either access the ACA unsubsidized, or work for employers that hire a lot of low paid labor, leading to godawful health insurance. I worked at places where the insurance we got was so flimsy, the ACA made it illegal: Huge deductibles, coinsurance along with lifetime maximums that made sure that if you got something bad, insurance would cut you off.

Health insurance in this country has been in an awful trend since at least the Clinton years. the ACA only helped some. We don't need a repeal, but something that subsidizes you too. Health savings accounts and insurance across state lines ain't going to help, but it's going to give us sicker people that just have access to the emergency room and go bankrupt, like in the last of the Bush years.

<comment><USER45> _> The ACA is working great for people that make so little they get subsidies._

Not everyone. In NC alone, there are 377,000 people who make _too little_ to qualify for ACA subsidies yet are not covered by Medicaid. That's a lot of people, and that's just one state. There are 19 other states that also don't have expanded Medicaid.

[http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts-and-features/state-by- st...](http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts-and-features/state-by-state/how- aca-is-working-for-north-carolina/index.html)

Even with subsidized ACA, the Bronze plans are pretty shit. Average family deductibles in 2017 will be $12,393, with the average monthly premium for a 40-year-old costing $350. Other than 1 checkup per year and female care, these families get to pay $1,000+ per month in premiums (assuming 2 adults and 2 kids) and another $12,000+ on top of that before their plan does much of anything for them.

[http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/26/obamacare-deductibles-are- on-...](http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/26/obamacare-deductibles-are-on-the-rise- for-2017-along-with-monthly-premiums.html)

Even with a subsidy I don't think it makes sense for a lower middle class family to pay $5,000-10,000 for 3-5 checkups, and $20,000+ if they actually need to use that coverage. Yet they'll be hit with a tax penalty if they don't do that.

How is this good?

<comment><USER46> North Carolia refused Medicaid expansion, which was the other half of the ACA bargain.

[http://m.indyweek.com/indyweek/pat-mccrorys-refusal-to- expan...](http://m.indyweek.com/indyweek/pat-mccrorys-refusal-to-expand- medicaid-is-a-moral-failure/Content?oid=4627343)

The tax penalty is rather modest, and there are alternatives to health insurance such as religious health co-ops that control costs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> "All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered "extreme vetting." "

I visit the US every year to see friends. Some of whom are Arab-American. I'm seriously worried that I'm going to find myself on the receiving end of 'extreme vetting'.

<comment><USER48> Free colonoscopy though.

<comment><USER49> I'm sad to see this downvoted, a bit of inappropriate humor is comforting right now. Thanks for the chuckle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> > FIRST, propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all > members of Congress.

I've debated this approach with friends in the past. From a game-theory perspective, does this promote or hinder political corruption?

I'm inclined to believe that term limits would actually encourage corruption.

1) If senators have to find a job after 8 years, surely that encourages the revolving door between industry and government, as they need to find another job .

2) If excellent and popular politicians have to be replaced before they fall from popularity, and it still costs a lot of money to get elected, then candidates will become more beholden to special interests (as they can't campaign on their track record or political capital). This would also dilute the overall quality of legislators.

3) If the average candidate has little or no political record, then how can we root out those who are beholden to special interests? At least currently we can look at who they have taken money from over the years in the public records that are available. If every candidate is a blank slate, who hasn't been subjected to oversight, it will be much easier for a candidate to be secretly bought without the public having a chance to spot it.

The real problem is not that there exists career politicians, it's that they experience extreme conflicts of interest due to being permitted to engage in insider trading [1], that they are not restricted from taking jobs in the industries they regulated while in government [2], and that there is a massive flow of money into politician's campaigns from special interests [3].

A more credible solution to these problems is advanced by Represent.us: [http://anticorruptionact.org/whats-in-the- act/](http://anticorruptionact.org/whats-in-the-act/)

[1]: [https://theintercept.com/2015/05/07/congress-argues-cant- inv...](https://theintercept.com/2015/05/07/congress-argues-cant-investigated- insider-trading/) [2]: [https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/](https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/) [3]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC)

<comment><USER51> You also get people like Feinstein[1] because of the lack of term limits.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein#Mass_surveill...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein#Mass_surveillance_and_encryption)

<comment><USER52> If you're arguing for term limits, you can make your case stronger by pointing out senators and representatives from both parties.

<comment><USER51> I'm a non american who is talking on the internet who has no power over this stuff. Feinstien came to mind because she in long term and I saw her stance in the Snowden issue. There are probably plenty of senators and congresscritters you can point out in the same way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> I'm confused about this regulation thing. Many people hate regulations because they think of it as limiting for businesses. But I think, you couldn't work as a business if there were no regulations.

An example, Nevada voted to open its electricity market this week. Everybody should be able to choose the provider they want.

But to do this, there need to be regulations in place. Independent companies need to know how they can use the grid, the company who owns the grid needs to know what it can charge for the usage of the grid.

If you let such a market without any regulation, there won't be a market, because the grid owner won't let anyone use its grid.

So removing regulations is not always a good thing. Most of the time regulations were put there for a reason.

<comment><USER54> > If you let such a market without any regulation, there won't be a market, > because the grid owner won't let anyone use its grid.

What?

<comment><USER53> anyone meaning mostly competitors. If you want to distribute electricity, you need a way to reach your customers. Since it is unrealistic to build your own grid.

And if there are no regulations about it, the grid owner doesn't have to give you access to its grid. So you can't supply your electricity. So the customers can't exercise their right to choose.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> 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.

<comment><USER56> The climate change one scares me the most as well. We should be focused on renewable energy more than anything right now. It's a much bigger threat than terrorism.

And building a wall and kicking out immigrants is so backwards. We need to be more united as humans and work together, not put up more barriers.

<comment><USER57> What's wrong with making people come through a door in a wall? You realize some people have homes with walls around them and they actually prefer visitors to ring the doorbell and wait for you to let them in. It's the exact same principle. If you lose sight of this very simple concept then you need to go back and see where you overcomplicated it. You don't see people like Richard Feynman going "oh this quantum mechanics, it's just too complicated, you can never explain in simply. Forget it." That's being intellectually lazy. The concept of borders, walls, immigration, visas must be simple to explain. There's a wall, there's a door. You want to come in, you go through the door. Done. If you think this is backward, then just remove the locks on the doors to your house while you're at it.

He's specifically talking about ILLEGAL immigrants. People that did not come in through the door. If you fail to prefix the word immigrant with illegal in any immigration discussion you're deliberately distorting Trumpian policies.

<comment><USER13> How will a wall stop illegal immigration? Couldn't traffickers just use ladders to climb the wall?

<comment><USER57> I'm guessing he's going to make it difficult and monitor it. Maybe they'll start blowing it up in places. But hey Mexico is gonna pay for it, so they'll be forced to pay for the fixes too (a guess). Maybe after a while Mexico starts realizing that this wall is fucking expensive if they're not stopping people from getting over it. So maybe they'll start patrolling it themselves and trying to keep people from illegally scaling it. Right now it costs them nothing, so they have no incentive to do anything about it.

Who knows.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> How did I not see this before the election (even if it came out 102316 as evidenced in the file name)? Why did NYT/Guardian/all of the news sites that I regularly visit not report this?

This is a clear policy proposal, contrary to everything I had read that said he had no clear plan.

<comment><USER59> Bookmark some more news sites so you get a wider spectrum. Smaller independent operations (ex: Breitbart, Drudge Report) are less vulnerable to being co- opted or politically motivated.

Also, r/The_Donald is has been an excellent aggregate for all things related to the campaign.

Also, see Wikileaks to get an idea of how bad the bias/corruption has been in the media (ex: CNN giving HRC questions in advance of debates [0], CNN asking HRC campaign for input regarding questions for Donald in exclusive interview [1]); this should help you understand the scope of the situation and why you haven't been getting good reporting from mainstream news.

[0] [https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/786225211481792514](https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/786225211481792514)

[1] [https://wikileaks.org/dnc- emails/emailid/25846](https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/25846)

<comment><USER60> You cite Breitbart as an example of a website that is "less vulnerable to being co-opted or politically motivated."

How is that even remotely accurate, considering the Chairman of Breitbart, Steve Bannon, is Trump's campaign chairman?

<comment><USER59> Fair point, thank-you. That taken into consideration, would you say there is no harm in at least adding Breitbart to the basket of news media sources? Which could also include CNN, who's anchors also could all very well have been candidates for chairman of Clinton's campaign.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> For corporations, there's an odd mix of sticks and carrots. For example these two promises:

"... trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10% rate."

"Establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers ..."

So a company can more easily bring back offshore billions to the US, but at the same time, new tariffs are put in place that make it harder to lay off people, thus effectively discouraging the company from spending that money on creating jobs in the country?

Seems like the net effect of these seemingly bold new rules could be practically zero.

It's odd that Trump is a businessman, yet his list of solutions includes all kinds of tariffs and trade restrictions to rein in business. There's a reason Western countries don't use tariffs much anymore: they're counterproductive if you want to stimulate growth. But I guess that old economics lesson is about to be put to another test.

<comment><USER62> > It's odd that Trump is a businessman, yet his list of solutions includes all > kinds of tariffs and trade restrictions to rein in business. There's a > reason Western countries don't use tariffs much anymore: they're > counterproductive if you want to stimulate growth. But I guess that old > economics lesson is about to be put to another test.

It's pretty clear he was never a good businessman. He was good at finding loopholes and exploiting people and policies. Now I imagine we'll start to see that kind of shoddy policy making at a national level. And "shoddy" is giving him a large benefit of the doubt. It feels like an intentional attempt to maximize short-term benefits with complete disregard for long-term consequences.

<comment><USER63> > "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

<comment><USER64> 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.

<comment><USER65> > 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.

Matt Levine wrote a great article on this idea: [https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-09-03/should- do...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-09-03/should-donald-trump- have-indexed-)

Maybe the best line: "For one thing, if he put all his money in index funds and reinvested all the dividends for 41 years, he'd be dead, because you can't buy food with reinvested dividends."

<comment><USER66> Crazy that I'm not dead yet. Somehow the rest of us manage to eat without spending dividends earned from money given to us by our parents.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> Leave nafta? There doesn't seem to be a very thorough analysis on the effect of this.... You can't just make changes to economic policy and hope for the best - there are far and wide impacts to making changes like this.

<comment><USER68> >You can't just make changes to economic policy and hope for the best

Obviously you can, you mean shouldn't. I'm sure wisdom will prevail.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> I hate Trump, but some of this isn't actually that bad sounding. I have some doubts though if such a divisive and hated guy can manage to get stuff through though. He has not made himself into a person people want to cooperate with.

For some things though, he makes the problem sound way simpler than it is. E.g. removing existing regulations when introducing an new one and reducing government employees.

We got a right wing government in Norway thinking much along these lines promising removal of red tape, fewer public sector employees etc.

They failed. Reality is just a lot more complicated. Instead they have resorted to stupid tricks to make it look as if they are reducing public sector employees. They more some employees to other organizations which are not technically part of government. They they can make the statistics look pretty. But they are still paying for the services of these people.

The problem with e.g. reducing public sector employees is that every new government has big ambitions they want to happen YESTERDAY. That can only happen by public sector employees making it happen. The more ambitious your changes, the more new bureaucrats you frequently need to hire to get this done.

New ambitions typically also means a lot more rules and regulations have to be added.

I know this problem well from Software development. We want to reduce the number of useless lines of code. Except from users and managers there is a tremendous pressure and incentive for new functionality to be added. That means more lines of code not less.

Laws and regulations will be the same. People want the new stuff. They don't want to hear that you spent all this time removing stuff which doesn't really give anybody anything new, except a nice refactored law book.

Likely you are going to need to hire lots of people to actually start cutting down on regulation. Identifying what can be removed and figuring out how the rephrase things requires actual work, which somebody has to do. And if they are doing that they are not implementing the new policies of the administration.

<comment><USER70> I thing the idea behind the removing existing regulations rule works better for software than it does for laws.

It basically boils down to Leave things tidier than when you arrived.

No massive refactor projects, just fix up little things when you're in the area. Sure you never end up with a particularly nice codebase but it's not getting worse and it's not costing the business massive amounts to make something prettier for little benefit.

Also works well with backlogs, especially for client projects, you want a new feature? what are you willing to drop off the backlog to get it?

It's generally well known that most products contain a crap tonne of unused features and removing them reduces technical debt (eg potential bugs, overweight/slow apps).

I don't see it as a hard rule to sell in software.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> It is fascinating to read all these comments (594 as I write this) analyzing this is a policy document. This is a marketing document. What will the actual policies be? Who knows. Perhaps some of them will be somewhat like some of the words in this document. Perhaps others will not. We are headed very far into uncharted territory, and all these pundits writing so many words confident about exactly what will happen, seems obviously silly given what has happened recently.

<comment><USER52> I agree there's an element of silliness :) Another way to think about it is we're trying to determine what might happen given what we know and understanding what we consider acceptable as part of the process. And hopefully figuring out how to discuss these issues with each other without increasing our polarization, and finding some common ground.

Okay, okay. I can hope, can't I?

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> > 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, mainly here [1]). Can anyone spot issues on these measures?

[1]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12916509](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12916509)

<comment><USER72> 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

<comment><USER73> Yeah I just can't imagine how this could be enforced.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> _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 felony convictions_

How Mexico will be forced to pay for a wall built by the US will make for a good TV show.

Private prisons are about to make a killing with the 2- and 5-year mandatory prison terms.

<comment><USER75> Ban Western Union "send money back to family in Mexico" payments until Mexico agrees to pay for the wall: [https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Pay_for_the_Wall.pdf](https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Pay_for_the_Wall.pdf)

<comment><USER76> I don't usually read campaign documents like this... is this normal? Is it normal to simplify things so much so to say Day 1 do X, Day 2 do Y, Day 3 resolved.

<comment><USER75> Is a little more structured and upfront than others I've seen

<comment><USER76> In one sense I would suspect typical high level political speak. On the other hand, if you are going to go into detail, do you make it seem as easy as 3 days of action?

So weird - thanks for linking that by the way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> Today, Trump appointed Myron Ebell (a massive climate change denier) to head up the EPA.

We're so utterly and completely fucked.

<comment><USER24> Florida is 1 of the 1st States to be severely affected by rising sea water levels from Climate change, and they just voted this guy into Office. Wow!

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> Does anyone have an idea about the expected global response to the Secretary of the Treasury labeling China a currency manipulator?

<comment><USER79> If it works out to impeding trade with China in anyway it just acts to slow our economy. We are not going to become more competitive with 1+ billion people who are willing to work without any labor protections by saying we won't do business with them. We're just sanctioning ourselves from essentially the world's manufacturing depot.

<comment><USER80> It could result in jobs for locals - however then investment needs to be made to support the manufacturing, educating skilled workers, etc.

<comment><USER79> In the sense that we would be doing to ourselves what we did to Cuba.

<comment><USER80> Suppose you're right, however the U.S. is in a much different situation than Cuba resource wise - education, networks, investment capital, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> This is so Berlusconi [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_the_Italians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_the_Italians)

<comment><USER82> Or so Newt? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America)

<comment><USER83> Well, considering Newt is one of Trump's key advisers....

<comment><USER84> nope. that's not a point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> This can't be good for Tesla and a lot of other green companies. My hope is that despite this "contract" he won't do much... I believe the price of the energy is not longer only about the production and distribution but also its long term effects(i.e health, sustainability, climate change).

<comment><USER86> So far, oil prices are on the rise with the news of Trump winning.

It's not surprising as he heavily critiqued the deal with Iran - a deal which opened up trade of a lot of oil from the country.

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> 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 games behind peoples' backs. He might clean them up a bit or make them favor U.S. more.

2\. Foreign trading abuses. He griped about that on the Oprah show especially pointing out how the Japanese make it nearly impossible for him to do business in their country. He said many of the countries supposedly have trade agreements to make it easy but they trip us up with little obstacles. He'll probably stand by that.

3\. Shift from UN to American infrastructure. I have doubts climate change strategies will work at all given how they're partial with lots of noncompliance. Meanwhile, those infrastructure aren't getting much support. Lesser of two evils.

4\. Cancel unconstitutional EO's of Obama. I'm for doing that for all Presidents. He should start at Bush by vetoing Patriot Act, mass surveillance, etc. We know he said Obama for a reason, though. (sighs)

5\. My family and many local businesses were affected heavily by illegal immigrants where lots of people lost jobs. We've also been hit with the fine letter of the law repeatedly. I'm for tight immigration policies & fair enforcement of law. Opposite of this coin is he should start arresting or fining any business owners that knowingly hired illegal immigrants just to be fair. There are two sides to that problem.

6\. Tax Simplification. Often good.

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.

8\. Child and elderly care. Sounds good.

9\. Help veterans part of the National Security Act. They've been getting dogged by the system pretty bad that I've seen.

<comment><USER88> Yeah, you get child and elder care _if_ you make enough money to owe enough taxes to cover those bills. Poor? Working minimum wage? Sorry, I guess your kid gets to stay at home with gramma to kill two birds with one stone.

<comment><USER89> I'm kind of realizing that my wife and I are in a decent financial position and have good jobs and that things like

* Killing Obamacare and leaving millions without health insurance (but lowering premiums!)

* Lowering taxes on high earners

* Child care credits for high earners and not for the poor

Would all benefit us. The angry cynical part of my brain kind of urges me towards a "you know what, all those white-no-education-economic-malaise people who voted for him are going to get just what they deserve.".

But there's also all the fascist stuff about deportations and walls and I don't want to live in a me me me society anyway, so I'll do what I can to fight this garbage.

Among other things, I just signed up for the ACLU: [https://action.aclu.org/secure/renew-your-aclu- membership](https://action.aclu.org/secure/renew-your-aclu-membership)

<comment><USER90> Counteracting a me me me society with authoritarian mandates forcing people to give to the poor cannot be morally justified in my opinion.

The just use of the law is to punish those who violate the rights of others, not those who don't meet our personal moral standards on acting altruistically. The latter is treading on theocratic ideology.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER91> Does anyone know if this -

 _Enacts new ethics reforms to drain the swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics._

...means overturning Citizens United? Because if it doesn't, then this is just propaganda.

</comment><comment><USER92> WTF, America? How could anyone trust an alleged narcissist, extremist, sexist, racist, self-righteous and nationalist who paid nothing in income tax for the last 20 years to do what he says?

<comment><USER52> A significant percentage of voters in the US came to that conclusion, given the choices they had. I think it's likely pretty easy to find one of them to ask, if you're willing to listen.

<comment><USER93> Not the majority, though.

<comment><USER52> No candidate received a majority. Clinton (last I checked) is on pace to win a plurality of the popular vote — and that by a pretty slim margin. But that's beside the point. None of this justifies dismissing or insulting or generalizing the opinions of nearly half of the voting population. It's just not constructive. Like it or not, you live in a society with other people. We need to be able to live and work _with_ each other.

<comment><USER92> > you live in a society with other people. We need to be able to live and work > with each other.

I agree. But it appalls me to think why any rational person would support an openly racist and sexist to lead a nation who doesn't pay tax? Even illegal immigrates pay taxes - [http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/study- undocum...](http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/study-undocumented- immigrants-pay-billions-in-taxes). I find it ironic.

<comment><USER52> How are you going to live and work with them if you don't think they're rational? I don't want to put words in your mouth but I'm afraid that's how some might interpret what you've said. Am I being unfair?

<comment><USER92> It's a reasonably fair argument I believe. Yes, I can still live with them fine, but that's beside the point, isn't it? It's a fair question and deserve a fair answer. People must've gone through some sort of thinking, pros and cons before cast their vote unless they already made up their mind and turning a blind eye on troulbed personal traits. Are you not agree? Do you offer any explanation or answer that would enlighten us?

<comment><USER52> First off, thanks for continuing this discussion in a thoughtful way.

The very short answer is that I'm not going to presume how others voted how they did, on either side, at least without asking them. I know that I don't subscribe to all of the views of the candidate I voted for, so I'll grant others the benefit of the doubt they didn't either. There are a lot of different issues, and people hold different positions of those issues, and prioritize the issues differently as well. There are some single-issue voters out there. I'm not. I'm not going to assume you are, either. I may not agree with the positions that someone else holds, or their prioritization of them.

I know I'm not perfect or have all of the answers. I also know that I've changed my positions on issues over the course of my life. I have hope that we can figure out what issues we have in common and work on those together. I also hope that by talking with one another we can come to agreements and be willing to change our minds.

At this point, the election is over. We have choices on how we move forward. My hope is that we can move forward together, and given how split the country is and how unhappy people were even with the candidates they supported, I think this is possible. I hope you do, too!

Thanks again for reading through this and sticking with it.

<comment><USER92> > The very short answer is that I'm not going to presume how others voted how > they did, on either side, at least without asking them. I know that I don't > subscribe to all of the views of the candidate I voted for, so I'll grant > others the benefit of the doubt they didn't either. There are a lot of > different issues, and people hold different positions of those issues, and > prioritize the issues differently as well. There are some single-issue > voters out there. I'm not. I'm not going to assume you are, either. I may > not agree with the positions that someone else holds, or their > prioritization of them.

Thanks you. You response is somewhat similar to what a politician would say, equivocal and indirect. Basically, you avoided my question and did not say anything meaningful unfortunately.

> I know I'm not perfect or have all of the answers. I also know that I've > changed my positions on issues over the course of my life. I have hope that > we can figure out what issues we have in common and work on those together. > I also hope that by talking with one another we can come to agreements and > be willing to change our minds.

That's why I'm asking the question and hope you would have the answer. But sadly like many others, you are not forthcoming to share but instead wanted us to talk to others for answers. Why is it so hard to share? Why can we get a straight answer to a simple question?

> At this point, the election is over. We have choices on how we move forward. > My hope is that we can move forward together, and given how split the > country is and how unhappy people were even with the candidates they > supported, I think this is possible. I hope you do, too!

Again, not exactly the answers I was hoping for. But thank you for the positive attitude. We all need it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER94> Who put this list together and how? a night of heavy "thinking"? Who did they consult on how realistic and achievable these goals are? Does budget allow for any of this?

Is this all made up BS plan that could never be achieved?

</comment><comment><USER95> This reads like Buzz Windrip's list from _It Can 't Happen Here_.

It can happen here.

<comment><USER96> Totally agree with you. Just read that book a few months ago. Scary similarities, and prescient (let's hope not too much).

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> _propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress._

Not a bad idea.

 _begin removing the more than two million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won't take them back._

Only the _criminal_ ones. OK

<comment><USER97> 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...](http://prospect.org/article/populist-road-hell-term-limits- california)

<comment><USER74> 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 ...

<comment> zaphods-towel 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?

<comment><USER98> [http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/charlie-daniels/charlie- da...](http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/charlie-daniels/charlie-daniels-our- system-was-not-designed-career-politicians)

Basically, without term limits, politics turns into a game of power plays and re-election campaigns, instead of actually representing the constituents.

<comment> zaphods-towel Interesting. I definitely hear that, and I find that argument somewhat convincing. On the other hand, I worry a wholeee lot about term limits encouraging a revolving door between public and private work. I guess the ideal solution would be an appropriately-sized term limit: not too short and not too long? Or perhaps shorter term limits & some other way of protecting against revolving door behavior. Thanks for sharing the article!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER99> "THIRD, cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities."

Is this explained anywhere?

<comment><USER100> A sanctuary city is one that obstructs (directly or indirectly) the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

[http://www.apsanlaw.com/law-246.List-of-Sanctuary- cities.htm...](http://www.apsanlaw.com/law-246.List-of-Sanctuary-cities.html)

Since this list is most of your bigger more liberal cities (LA, SF, NYC), I do wonder what it means to cut off all federal funding to those cities.

<comment><USER101> I live by one of those cities, and there are indeed a lot of visa overstayers living there.

The prospect of those people being too scared to call 911 if they witness a crime is something I am decidedly NOT looking forward to.

<comment><USER102> Hopefully we can crack down on employers so that these visa over-stayers don't stay long enough for that to happen.

<comment><USER101> Crack down on employers? Yeah, like that's going to happen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER103> I can't believe that he is really going to go through with:

 _THIRD, I will direct the Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator._

Has nobody told him what this is going to do to the economy? The rest of his proposals he will have to get past congress and the courts, but this is one he can do all on his own.

</comment><comment><USER104> 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++.

</comment><comment><USER105> He's calling executive actions unconstitutional. Let's hope he sticks to that.

<comment><USER106> No, it's describing the actions he's going to repeal. "Repeal those actions which were unconstitutional", not "repeal the actions, which are unconstitutional".

<comment><USER105> I don't see the quote you mention in the linked article. However, the wording is ambiguous.

<comment><USER106> I was paraphrasing, not quoting. I don't think the wording is ambiguous, but it's deliberately easy to misread on skimming the document.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER107> If the Secretary of the Treasury designates China as a currency manipulator, your new iPhone will wind up costing you $2000. What madness.

<comment><USER108> Actually, i would like to know what this "currency manipulator " labeling really means ? Will goods from china be taxed more ? if so, how much more ?

<comment><USER109> 45% is the number he's talked about in the past.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER110> So, this is NOT new, it's been around for a while (see the footer of the document). Important to recognize that this may not be his actual first 100 day plan now he has actually won.

The bigger problem is that since the Democrats and media took the "Literally Hitler" approach, no policies got discussed even though they were available in plain sight. Now whether you like them or not, he's won, and people had no opportunity to understand the policy differences between the candidates.

</comment><comment><USER111> Wow did he just take a page directly from Berlusconi's book? Berlusconi did the exact same 100 days contract about ten years ago!

<comment><USER112> The first 100 days is actually a tradition for new US Presidents to create a plan (and a litmus test), which started with FDR in 1933.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_100_days_of_Franklin_D._...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_100_days_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt%27s_presidency)

</comment></comment><comment><USER113> this is laid out like an actual memorandum of understanding as used in business.

many contracts start out this way then turn into actual contracts full of legalese. in government context that would be legislation.

this isn't a bad start at all if a reasonable amount of it actually happens.

<comment><USER97> It's a horrible start and a huge step backwards. A blanket ban on hiring new government workers or replacing existing ones is the stupidest idea ever for cutting the government workforce. Among other things, we as Americans have a wonderful collective resource in the form of public land, which is already poorly funded and hard to maintain because of the low workforce. Preventing the hiring of any more people to work and maintain trails, campgrounds and other resources is going to lead to them falling into further disrepair, getting shut down and abandoned. Even the volunteers who spend considerable time and money of their own to do much of the supplemental work currently won't be enough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Oh almost forgot: get ready for the end to net neutrality.

Comcast/ATT/Verizon: nice startup you got there... would be a shame if anything happened to your traffic.

</comment><comment><USER114> SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

Pardon my naivety but who does this target?

<comment><USER115> Saudi Arabia.

[http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-13/saudi-arabia-has- fu...](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-13/saudi-arabia-has- funded-20-hillarys-presidential-campaign-saudi-crown-prince-claims)

</comment></comment><comment><USER116> I'm worried about 18F/USDS/etc. because of the freeze on federal hiring. Partly I have friends there, but mostly, those organizations need to exist if government is going to be effective. They're getting things done, and they're also taking business away from government contractors who don't get things done (i.e., saving significant taxpayer money).

<comment><USER117> USDS, in its current form, is probably toast. It was a special initiative of Obama and is housed directly within his executive office. To my knowledge it exists solely at the President's discretion. Trump is not a digital guy, and not likely to want to hold over Obama folks (and vice versa).

18F is housed within GSA and so is somewhat isolated from political interference. That said, private contractors don't like it and will seek to label it as a wasteful project (already started--there was an attack article on HN last week).

The U.S. federal government under Obama had started to take some small steps toward modern digital competency. My expectation for a Trump administration is a complete reversal of that. Who's going to champion technology? Trump?? Mike Pence? Giuliani? And how many young talented developers are going to want to take a pay cut to eat bureaucratic shit in DC for Donald Trump? The allure for USDS was Obama himself.

<comment><USER118> I disagree on USDS. My understanding is that the money to fund USDS is already appropriated through the end of 2017, and there is bipartisan support to extend that money. A bill was introduced to do just that, actually (though nothing has been done with it since it was referred to committee). Lots of people like USDS on both sides of the aisle because it actually does make things more efficient.

Not saying it will survive an entire Trump presidency, but I think it's not on the chopping block immediately. I do worry that they won't be able to expand as planned though to have mini-USDS people in each Agency because of the hiring freeze.

<comment><USER119> Mikey Dickerson, the head of USDS, spoke at Velocity Conf in NYC this Sept and he was hinting that the organization was done for after this administration comes to a close. It will be a shame if this is true, as his group is a shining example of great work being done for the people and something to be proud of and continued.

Here is his presentation: [https://www.oreilly.com/ideas/two-years-of-the-us- digital-se...](https://www.oreilly.com/ideas/two-years-of-the-us-digital- service?cmp=yt-webops-books-videos-product- na_velocity_keynote___two_years_in_the_us_digital_service)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER120> "... The business rate will be lowered from 35% to 15%, and the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10% rate."

15% seems like a lofty goal, even 25% would be drastic. Unless a corporation can be confident that there will be significant growth in the economy, they are likely to hoard the savings than reinvest them.

</comment><comment><USER121> _" limit, freeze, eliminate, ban, withdraw, label, end, remove, suspend and cancel"_

Just some of the words that stuck out to me.

<comment><USER122> He had an entire TV show about firing people. He appears to prefer to destroy rather than create.

<comment><USER123> Absolutely terrible example.

The TV show created many jobs (producers, editors, filmers, the 'assistant' (spokesperson...) position being fought for) and those who were "fired" (never really hired to begin with, were they?) failed to meet the job requirement. Which was to be the best business-person. A meritocracy, as things should be, rather than being based on race/gender/filling some sort of diversity quota.

In reality they became spokespeople when they won. But that wasn't what the show was _about_ or portrayed. Trump was portrayed as the "hard/rough" sort of boss and the "You're fired." was just the slogan/catchphrase which worked wonderfully as a TV catchphrase/slogan. It was short, memorable, and people knew where it was from.

There was a whole lot more creation than destruction....

<comment><USER124> He didn't create or own the show. He was an employee.

<comment><USER123> The argument put forward still doesn't work, especially with that being the case, but thank you for the knowledge.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER125> Seems pretty reasonable. I remain optimistic.

</comment><comment><USER126>
       cancel every unconstitutional executive action,

memorandum and order issued by President Obama.

I think we need some claification on what is "constitutional"

<comment><USER49> I will be replacing "unconstitutional" in my head with "against Donald Trump's business interests" for the next few years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER127> Lest anyone forgets, term limits will never happen. Mitch McConnell is 100% against it and, guess what, it has to get through him to happen.

</comment><comment><USER128> Given that the Republicans have a majority in BOTH the House and the Senate, it's likely a majority of these initiatives will go through!

<comment><USER129> The Republicans have a majority in the Senate, but just barely; it certainly isn't even close to being filibuster proof. And given how polarized the parties are now, I would expect the Senate Democrats to simply stonewall anything they don't like.

</comment></comment><comment><USER130> Let's pay Damien Gregory for the Real Lockdown phone gas you president speech and Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Lockdown and Trump towers contact him for your shit back needs to be Paid for everything 509-945-4338

</comment><comment><USER131> Screw it. Let's go all in with "clean coal". Fund NASA with the additional tax revenue from all the new oil money going around. Let's get off the planet before it matters.

<comment><USER132> Let's face it we're mostly stuck here. Only a small handful of people can leave the planet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER133> "Six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC"

Ok, I'm on board with all of those... Then, besides a few other points, it just gets worse and worse the further into it you go.

If he accomplishes all 6, or even half, that's great. I just hope he won't have enough time to ruin everything else. At least now (especially after Dubya) we know we need outsiders vigilantly watching every move (and non-move) he makes.

</comment><comment><USER134> >FIRST , cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama.

Does this mean the LGBT rights to marry will be taken back?

<comment> nommm-nommm LGBTs didn't gain the rights to marry by executive order issued by Obama. They gained those rights largely by judicial review.

</comment></comment><comment><USER135> Replace health insurance with health savings accounts?

<comment><USER136> 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.

<comment><USER137> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER138> So you can sign a copy of the contract that only you will have? I don't think that's the way contracts are made.

<comment><USER139> He was voted for president democratically, that's the populous signing their part of the contract.

</comment></comment><comment><USER140> Did he upload this today?

<comment><USER141> Based on the filename, it looks like it was uploaded on October 23, 2016.

<comment><USER142> Here is the _pdfinfo_ metadata of the file with MD5 69cbf547083badc96cd3d86ef233e124

        Title:          O-TRU-102316-Contractv06.indd
        Creator:        Adobe InDesign CC 2015 (Macintosh)
        Producer:       Adobe PDF Library 15.0
        CreationDate:   Tue Oct 25 15:34:22 2016
        ModDate:        Tue Oct 25 15:34:23 2016
        Tagged:         no
        Form:           none
        Pages:          2
        Encrypted:      no
        Page size:      612 x 792 pts (letter) (rotated 0 degrees)
        File size:      549294 bytes
        Optimized:      no
        PDF version:    1.3

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER143> "Restoring National Security Act" The Federalization of law enforcement has the potential for fascism. Also lowering the repatriation of corporate abroad profit makes it more tax efficient to move jobs overseas. A 10% repatriation below the 15% cap gains rate is a massive tax loophole.

</comment><comment><USER144> I was born in Uzbekistan, having Russian citizenship and living in the Netherlands.

I wonder if they allow me to enter US.

I _hope_ Trump won't go _that far_ (i.e. banning from entering US because I was born in Uzbekistan).

</comment><comment><USER145> Are any TN visa holders worried about Trump wanting to withdraw from NAFTA?

<comment><USER146> Yes with a but.

I'm not convinced Trump fully understands what NAFTA entails. He talks a lot about the importing of goods manufactured in Mexico and the export of American jobs to Mexico, but to my knowledge he hasn't talked about any other aspect of it. Surely the tech sector would freak out and raise a stink if all their TN employees had to leave overnight.

The CBC has a high level article covering the ambiguities around getting out of NAFTA. [http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-nafta- trade-1.3657...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-nafta- trade-1.3657673)

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> The Guardian just published a line-by-line analysis of this document:

[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/13/trump- policy...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/13/trump-policy- pledges-gettysburg-speech)

</comment><comment><USER147> Apart from the content, why is it even called a "contract"? There's no terms and obligations for the "American voter" in there.

<comment><USER148> He's trying to play off of his "I'm a business man" persona. By calling it a "contract" people are more likely to believe that he will honour it. Time will tell if that actually happens or not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER149> Cached version, since the site seems unresponsive.

[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fassets.donaldjtrump.com%2F_landings%2Fcontract%2FO- TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf&oq=cache%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fassets.donaldjtrump.com%2F_landings%2Fcontract%2FO- TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER150> no carried interest talk, which is alright by me, that actually makes sense in giving an incentive for risk. would be interested to see if the 10% hit on monetary repatriation works, that could have some serious effects if that much multinational money gets sucked out of europe and abroad.

<comment><USER76> But is that money really doing anything over seas? Is it actually being put to work or just sitting in accounts?

</comment></comment><comment> d-sc Question: What are the analytics that this website contains to track the potential support/non support of viewers of the document?

</comment><comment><USER151> if these are really his views then I would be happy if he can achieve 50% of this. I understand why big people fought against him now.

</comment><comment><USER152> He's handing America's world dominance handedly to China. Start learning Chinese folks, America is done.

<comment><USER115> How does American world dominance help the people who voted for Trump?

<comment><USER153> Free trade lowers prices for everyone. The poors won't be able to buy food if Trump follows through with protectionism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Thanks! I was looking for this today.

</comment><comment><USER154> Federal prison is probably not as terrible as some of the conditions Mexicans flee from.

<comment><USER57> I can guarantee you prison is not going to be the same after Trump "reforms" the system :) They're not going to be using tax money to feed themselves.

</comment></comment><comment><USER155> Two words: industrial policy. Without it any likelihood of creating substantially more jobs than the the current trend goes out the window. The problem? Industrial policy is hard and requires some attention span. You can't just tweet it out.

</comment><comment><USER156> This document is from before the election, it's invalid now.

</comment><comment><USER157> "SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections." \-- sounds rather Russian, don't they have a law now forcing Amnesty International and others to register as "foreign agents"?

<comment><USER158> Yes, but I don't see any parallels there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER159> I think it's weird how very few people on HN seem to be worried about his promise to initiate pogroms against minorities in the first 100 days, like it doesn't even warrant a mention for most of you

</comment><comment><USER160> > FIRST propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all > members of Congress.

If he does this alone, then he's made a huge impact.

I'm really concerned he might be assassinated.

<comment><USER161> I honestly don't believe there's any chance of that passing. However, if Donald Trump actually can make that happen, I will forgive everything I hold against him, because it would clear out most of our government rot within the next two elections.

<comment><USER162> I doubt it would make much of a difference - money is like water in politics, it will find its way in. Instead of the money coming in as donations for future elections it will be about promises of huge salary for the job after you hit your term limit, unless of course you only want those who don't need to work hold our elective offices.

<comment><USER161> Ah, but the fourth item on his list is to forbid outgoing Congresscritters from those jobs for half a decade. At the least, he (or someone working for him) seems to have considered that.

<comment><USER163> How do you enforce that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER164> Great so insurers can go back to dropping/denying people.

Why does Trump want US citizens to die because they cannot get health care?

</comment><comment><USER92> In other words, it's all other people / country's fault.

</comment><comment><USER126> wow. alot of these would be amazing if he got them to go through. maybe the "world is ending" rehtoric of 2008 when pres. obama was elected is similar to the current talk?

</comment><comment><USER165> hmm .. the thought I had when reading it was..

The Impossible Dream...

Why? Remember Trump ran as a Populist..but both political parties are somewhat Corporate Shrills...

Not saying it cannot happen..but probably not in his two terms..

</comment><comment><USER166> Seems reasonable.

</comment><comment><USER167> 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](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHh73fkDUIs)

and another

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug7diBO3XYY](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...](http://www.npr.org/2016/10/09/497291071/a-brief-history-of-juanita- broaddrick-the-woman-accusing-bill-clinton-of-rape)

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

</comment><comment><USER168> Why is this flagged ? The Outsourcing act itself has repercussions to tech industry. This is not political opinion, its a policy pamphlet. Its fine, you hate the man with all your guts out, but it would be a sign of maturity, to argue for or against them, sharing your insights, rather than flagging the message and flogging the messenger.

</comment><comment><USER169> Why does this post show up as flagged, but there's no vouch button which I normally see for flagged posts? I voted for Hillary, but this post shouldn't be flagged.

<comment><USER170> The vouch button appears when a story is flagged to the extent that it's killed, but [flagged] can appear before then. Since vouches saved this one and it's on the front page, we've removed the [flagged] label. Edit: and now the upvotes have countered the flags.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Trump should append this contract with "End Internet shills" because it seems there are a lot of them on this thread. Good golly, I thought finally CTR would close up shop after last night.

For the first time in generations the USA finally has a president who isn't a puppet. And this contract allows us to keep said President accountable from day one. Nerds rejoice! Fear not the knee-jerk comments from un/mis-informed trendies and especially ignore the talking-point bots still hating on Trump via whatever is left in the Soros/CF payroll account. After years of trying they ultimately failed and clearly cannot impact the will of the people at the end of the day. MAGA.

<comment><USER171> Grow up and realize that not everyone who disagrees with you is a "shill." This goes for you and for every Trump supporter who made the internet an intellectual wasteland during this election.

Trump won the election but lost the popular vote. Half the country finds him personally repulsive. His presidency will be more contentious than any other in memory. Like any other politician, he will not deliver on his promises and he will not fix complex problems just by being willing to "get things done."

There will never ever be any shortage of people genuinely willing to criticize Trump for free.

<comment><USER59> You say to grow up but in the following sentence you lob a totally unnecessary insult, shifting blame as if there is none to fall on those who supported the Clinton campaign.

You say Trump won the election but lost the popular vote; ok I'll give you that (ignoring for a moment the culture of criminality of the Clinton campaign and the possibility for election fraud ) but the margin of that popular vote is only by a 0.2 to 0.7% lead [0]. Hardly more than 50% if even.

Regardless, if I'm not mistaken, the popular vote doesn't determine who becomes President so this argument is flawed because if popular vote did determine who became President then the Trump campaign could very well have optimized their campaign to win said popular vote; requiring a different strategy but one that could very well have been successful just as they were at winning the battleground states as they did, and as so few predicted.

You say that half the country finds him personally repulsive. Why is that? I just laid out some facts about the media collusion and attempts to smear and disrupt his character and campaign. Why is your angst not directed at the sell-out mainstream media for helping to coordinate the propaganda which is now so deeply rooted in people's opinions towards the now President to be?

Finally, maybe it would be better to give the new President a chance to implement his promises before judging him on that regard. Maybe he is not like any other politician, after all he's the only President to ever take office who has no prior position in politics or military.

[0] [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/presidential-...](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/presidential- election-headquarters)

<comment><USER172> > but the margin of that popular vote is only by a 0.2 to 0.7% lead

Although the count hasn't yet finished - California could tip that a few % points upwards.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


HyperDex: Hashing in Hyperspace for fast (really fast) key value store searching - <AUTHOR> http://hyperdex.org/

<comment><USER2> There's no actual documentation on the site or in the tarball :(

<comment><USER3> I've uploaded a simple tutorial (<http://hyperdex.org/tutorial/>) on how to get started. The tutorial covers everything from installation through to fully functioning sample code.

If you have a minute to check it out, I'd appreciate any feedback you can provide.

<comment><USER2> Thank you. I will do so.</comment></comment></comment>


Abby Sunderland's Boat - Wild Eyes - <AUTHOR> http://abbysunderland.com/abbys-boat.php <comment><AUTHOR> And there is a blog at <http://soloround.blogspot.com/> which is updated often by "Team Abby".</comment>


Show HN: Callism is a dialer app with Mailbox swipes and smart contacts sorting - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/apps/2013/10/02/callism-is-a-dialer-app-for-the-iphone-with-mailbox-style-swipes-and-intelligent-contact-sorting/

<comment><USER2> The font used is rather ugly

<comment><AUTHOR> It's inspired by some great design during Bauhaus and people who like London 2012 Olympics font may like it as well.</comment></comment>


South Africa's declining maths performance is a worrying - <AUTHOR> https://www.iafrikan.com/2020/05/09/south-africas-declining-maths-performance-is-a-worrying/ <comment><USER2> Adding to this: I finished high school 3 years ago with a distinction for Mathematics from inevitably one of the 'top 200' schools mentioned in the article.

I read an article about a year ago showing the change in the syllabus for Maths over the last two decades and it was quite disturbing to see how the quality of the questions has decreased.

The upshot of this is that unfortunately even getting a distinction in the subject says very little about how you will fair in University. I very nearly had to repeat first year maths at UCT (also mentioned in the article). I really shudder to think how those with even less access to proper resources might have fallen by the wayside as a result of their circumstances.

In SA high schools it is increasingly common to take 'maths literacy' instead of the more intensive maths subject. This is once again skewed against students from poorer schools where they don't have good maths teachers and therefore see higher rates of students taking this 'maths lit' course which is limited to real world algebra problems without an introduction to calculus or any tools that students would need to succeed in university.</comment>


People are getting strange text messages, likely from the past - <AUTHOR> https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/text-messages-1.5248137 <comment><USER2> That's not good. Imagine getting a text message "from the grave".</comment>