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.
(seriously, though... you're probably right)
[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.]
Trump similarly faced an electorate that didn't like him or his opponent. She said "Like me!" and he said "Here's what I'll do for you." It was a smart thing to do. A much lower hurdle to have to jump.
Out of curiosity, in this era of disruption (for better or worse) where are the plans to disrupt politicians ? So many flaws yet we keep believing in the same democratic design every election.
There are two ways of changing the fundamental issues in a constitution: 1) violent revolution, 2) changes getting done in democratic process.
1) obviously works, but rarely (you need a LOT of support in the population in order to stage a coup).
2) I am afraid to say doesn't really work in America (or for that matter any major nation) any more. You have too many people who need the system to be "stable" for personal gain (reelections, in some cases continuing a supply of corruption money like with the private prison scandal, ...). You simply cannot fix issues like gerrymandering because it's too entrenched.
Today's politics are black boxes, form people to deal with it, elect some of them, let them do what they want, suffer the consequences. I don't think it's an adequate form of democracy for this century, it was alright before, with different economic structures, pace and technological basis; but today .. maybe it's my CS cursus speaking, maybe a more peer to peer system is needed.
Direct democracy can go badly wrong. Very badly wrong, and I don't neccessarily mean Hitler-level wrong. Just look at Switzerland, they are still struggling to implement a referendum from 2014 against freedom of movement in a way that doesn't kick them out of the EU (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_immigration_referendum,_...).
Given the election results, I wonder what 'd happen if there was a US-wide referendum with the simple question "Deport all undocumented persons"...
ps: I misread your answer and went into a monologue, I'm rewriting this previous answer.
> Sorry, I should have been clearer. I didn't mean digital. I meant p2p in the abstract sense. Where the system interactions are simpler, less hierarchical and everybody is almost a peer. Right now people, the blood and roots of a nation are, pardon the pun, second class citizen that have to follow representatives out of trust without any direct power beside a vote. I say this democratic design isn't enough anymore. We need more educated people (better education is easily possible) that can organize more, understand and decide more, even if it means move their ass more, but at least they'll have real power, not just a ballot.
Yep. But, as it can be seen with Trump (with the fact that Republicans control the legislative (Senate, Congress), the judicial (because they have at least one open Supreme Court post to fill, with potential for three more, and they're life-long!) and executive by way of "elected sheriffs, who came up with that nonsense anyway?!) and before with the Obama deadlock!, even a carefully crafted system of checks-and-balances cannot ensure that the ship "democracy" won't sink.
> We need more educated people (better education is easily possible) that can organize more, understand and decide more,
I fully agree with you, however from an outside POV the US education system looks totally broken (homeschooling?! 7-figure-levels of debt upon graduation?! segregated schools?! vastly different quality of education depending on if the public school district has money or not?!). Germany isn't that much better, and a load of other countries also have massive problems in education. When I look at what happened to people in the "poor-ish" hood I grew up, all I can say is that I was fucking lucky. A tiny bit less luck and I'd probably doing drugs now instead of working in IT.
> even if it means move their ass more, but at least they'll have real power, not just a ballot.
That's yet another can of worms. Back when I was young and went to school, we had MASSIVE school strikes to protest an "education reform" (aka clueless politicians listening to elitist "concerned parents"). Fascist marches/demonstrations were met with massive opposition of all kinds - from peaceful demonstrations to open riots in the streets. Most of the opposition were young(ish) people. Today, I'm happy when I'm out on the streets if there are 50 people on the road to oppose fascists. The youth has gone lethargic, and the "middle-aged" mostly spend their time and energy in internal debates instead of progressing society.
2) the education paragraph was mostly daydreaming, I know how crazy it is, but people rarely talk about it as a premium need. So I mentioned it.
3) I have nothing to say here. Maybe the tides will have to be since the people aren't ready to divert them.
The very idea of giving anti-vaxxers a more direct influence over healthcare policy is almost Hitler-level scary.
I believe that mathematically fair models for precinct shape have been described[1] -- such model could provide the basis for estimating the gerrymander induced vote-reflects-voter-will-error -- and the subsidy system could encourage population shift to try and approximate the results that would occur if the precincts had actually been drawn "fairly" ...
Yeah no.
Be involved and be informed, locally If not at a state or higher level.
- do note, that politicians (humans) have long since "hacked" the human cortex. They program you, and other humans by finding authority escalations, buffer overruns, Trojans and privileged executions all the time.
Right now, malware itself has become the OS.
To fix this, people need to be aware of how politics and cognition works.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
He will claim that he did indeed achieve them despite all evidence to the contrary.
If you manage to corner him on the argument, he will blame you for the failure.
* edit. Not sure what the downvote is for. Trump has used both tactics outlined above. He was always against the Iraq war despite evidence to the contrary. When he was under the impression that he would lose the election he cast blame elsewhere (election rigging).
He will delete it from his website and claim it never existed.
http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts-and-features/state-by-st...
There you go. Because you can't read: * There is in an individual mandate for insurance, you must have it, or you get hit with a tax penalty.
If you can afford insurance, we'll set up exchanges, and offer a subsidy to help offset the cost.
Employers over a certain size must offer healthcare.
* You can't drop people for preexisting conditions.
* You have to keep people on until age 27.
I can go on, but there's more.
If you're going to through out nonsense for premiums, I'll remind you that subsidies go up, and premiums always go up regardless of the law.
My car insurance premium goes up every year, Republicans say it is because of Obamacare.
Not saying the ACA is flawless, but I'm not confident that Trump and the GOP are going to improve the situation in the long-term. ("cutting the red tape at the FDA" might help a bit, though) It's still not clear exactly what actions they will take.
[0]http://kff.org/health-reform/fact-sheet/summary-of-the-affor... [1]http://kff.org/health-reform/fact-sheet/obamacare-and-you-if...
"All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered “extreme vetting""
A typical quote, and hardly the most disturbing thing he's said on the campaign trail:
""Torture works. OK, folks? You know, I have these guys -- "Torture doesn't work!" -- believe me, it works. And waterboarding is your minor form. Some people say it's not actually torture. Let's assume it is. But they asked me the question, What do you think of waterboarding? Absolutely fine. But we should go much stronger than waterboarding. That's the way I feel. They're chopping off heads. Believe me, we should go much stronger, because our country's in trouble. We're in danger. We have people that want to do really bad things! Remeber the power of weaponry. This isn't 100 years ago where we fight hand to hand combat. This is weapons that are so destructive -- so destructive -- that the world could end. We have to be very strong, we have to be very vigilant, we have to be very tough. Waterboarding is fine, but it's not nearly tough enough, OK?"
From http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/06/politics/donald-trump-torture/:
"...we are playing by rules, but they have no rules. It's very hard to win when that's the case," Trump said, adding that the United States' ban on waterboarding is a sign of weakness. "I think we've become very weak and ineffective. I think that's why we're not beating ISIS. It's that mentality," Trump said, adding that ISIS "must think we are a little bit on the weak side."
He has backpedaled on the issue since then, but the fact that he said this stuff in the first place is disturbing enough.
Democrats have generally been opposed to torture. That's half the country right there. For the other half of the country, a huge part of the Republican base are Christian voters, who ought to be at the tip of the spear of the fight against torture, but in practice seem to neither explicitly condone nor condemn it. But I'll be charitable and assume that the evangelical segment of the party is steadfast against torture, meaning that at least 2/3s of Republican voters are against torture. That leaves no more than 1/6th of the US population on board with torture. That's still pretty messed up, but I'm trying to be optimistic. :(
The most obvious case is getting a password. (or lock combo or crypto key, or anything else that you can verify) You torture until you get a password that works. Obviously, there should be good reason to believe that the person knows the password.
Another case is where you know many things but not everything. You ask about all that you want to know, including things you already know. The things you already know are the honesty check. Answers to the unknowns are assumed to be dishonest until you start getting correct answers for all the things you already know.
Who's this "you" you are talking to? Unless DT's been hanging out in HN, there's no way you're going to get an accurate answer.
I thought it was a contract
A middle ground might be to make those the term limits, but require the representatives to not fill that position that 3rd or 4th term, but able to fill other positions and come back later. E.g.
senate (6) -> senate (6) -> congress (2) -> congress (2) -> congress (2) -> senate (6)
senate (6) -> senate (6) -> congress (2) -> senate (6)
This isn't really breaking new ground. Probably, you're just more engaged in this election and this is better covered.
Transparency? Accountability? Are you kidding me? This is the guy that brags about molesting women and won't even release his tax returns. Did you see who is going to be in his cabinet? Some of the slimiest and shameless career politicians of all time. Christie? Gingrich? When have these people been accountable ever?
They are comparing it to Newt Gingrich's 1994 "Contract with America" [1]. It brought Republicans control of both the House and Senate, partly as a reaction to Clinton's 1993 healthcare plan [2].
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_...
On a side note this is one of the most naive things I have ever seen. I was a bit agnostic before, but wow this is literally handing Russia and China the keys to the global economy while thinking he is doing the opposite. Yikes, I really did not realize he was this under qualified.
China's actively seeking trade deals all over the world. The US taking a strongly antitrade position could improve their relative position. The devil is really in the details, though.
The geopolitical implications of Trump's isolationist position is going to be significant.
Since the China FTA came into effect, China has replaced the US as NZ's number 1 trading partner. The US is 4th on that list.[3]
Actual graph showing surplus:
[1]http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/feeding-the-dragon-lessons-of...
[2] http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/industry_sectors/i... [3] http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz...
If the US refuses to build trade relations, or becomes known for breaking agreements, then that gives China the opportunity to come in and instead establish their entertainment, technology, banking, and consumer goods companies. This would be clearly at the expense of the US and would gradually erode our economic influence around the world.
People around the world drink Coke, eat McDonalds, search on Google, get loans from Wells Fargo, buy stuff on their Visas, etc, largely due to these agreements. This money funnels back to the US to pay salaries, taxes and dividends.
So, short-term, US sheep farmers benefit from not having to compete on fair terms with New Zealand wool. But long-term, all other Americans lose as the income streams from established American companies are transferred to their non-US counterparts.
That's why the TPP is so important, it specifically excludes China because the goal is to further entrench US companies in SE Asia/Oceania. If the US backs out, then that gives China the opportunity to come in and sell the low-cost smart phones AND overpriced sugar water.
We are competing with China for trade partners and it seems backwards to me to forfeit.
What do you think they are doing with that money in tax havens? They buy US bonds and invest that money in our markets.
That's just one example but I was impressed when I saw it. And they have been adding 1 new LINE per year in Beijing, wheras we don't even add 1 new station per year in most US cities.
Have you been to China recently?
We spend most on military, social security and medicare. China doesn't.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/Rv5UHrNsvcucvflDwwz_pqEjjH...
The US is eating the apples but China owns the orchard.
Or rather to Bermuda, to fill the 0.5% tax-free accounts. So the sheep farmers are screwed and everyone else is screwed too. This is why people reject free trade (or think they do that by voting someone like Trump, which is another topic).
http://smallbusiness.house.gov/uploadedfiles/april_recess_sm...
Well, ok. Aside from the misuse of literally, that's certainly a metaphor I haven't heard being applied to this problem domain before...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-liter...
There's a fat chance of that being true... uhm, I mean to say the opposite of "slim chance".
I thought only Arabic had those. I always thought it was stupid.
That said, most contronyms give absolutely no cognitive dissonance. That "to dust" something can mean to remove or to add something has rarely caused confusion. Only place I have ever seen it was in some old children's books, to be honest. Which is half the reason they are fun. Teaching kids contradictions is what keeps some of it interesting.