44 ms·

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

• theptip 10y ago
  The Guardian just published a line-by-line analysis of this document: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/13/trump-policy-pledges-gettysburg-speech https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/13/trump-policy...
• Damie1399 10y ago
  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
• teemwerk 10y ago
  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.
  • giarc 10y ago
    But is that money really doing anything over seas? Is it actually being put to work or just sitting in accounts?
• dragthor 10y ago
  Thanks! I was looking for this today.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
• adt2bt 10y ago
  Does anyone have an idea about the expected global response to the Secretary of the Treasury labeling China a currency manipulator?
  • fredgrott 10y ago
    China had that label before but it was stated in public hence the previous private monetary talks between US, China, NK, etc..its just now out in the open
  • fredgrott 10y ago
    China had that label before but it was stated in public hence the previous private monetary talks between US, China, NK, etc..its just now out in the open
  • netule 10y ago
    Secretary of the Treasury is a member of the President's cabinet, so I'm sure Trump will appoint a willing implement.
  • ianai 10y ago
    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.
    • loceng 10y ago
      It could result in jobs for locals - however then investment needs to be made to support the manufacturing, educating skilled workers, etc.
      • ianai 10y ago
        In the sense that we would be doing to ourselves what we did to Cuba.
• internaut 10y ago
  > 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.
  • ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    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.
    • dugmartin 10y ago
      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.
      • ocdtrekkie 10y ago
        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.
        • Retra 10y ago
          How do you enforce that?
    • rblatz 10y ago
      My biggest fear of term limits would be the deep state respecting legislative oversight even less than it already does. A 2 term congressman can be waited out, but a 5-10 term congressman can really dig in.
    • 10y ago
• teamhappy 10y ago
  Did he upload this today?
  • inostia 10y ago
    I am very surprised that I am just reading this now. I wonder, if I had read it before (and I read NYT obsessively), that I would have re-considered by opinion.
  • cujo 10y ago
    No. Came out 2, 2 1/2 weeks ago.
  • beaner 10y ago
    Not sure when the document was uploaded, but he's talked about it in public before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zDPdwKL-7A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zDPdwKL-7A You can skip to 15:40.
  • magicpat2010 10y ago
    Based on the filename, it looks like it was uploaded on October 23, 2016.
    • mxfh 10y ago
      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
• jobu 10y ago
  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.
  • imajes 10y ago
    Whilst the concision is nice, it's pretty hand-wavy and without definition.
    • PeCaN 10y ago
      Hand-wavy? It has explicit action steps.
      • imajes 10y ago
        lets just take his first step- what kind of term limits? he could propose a term limit of 50 years, have achieved what he said he'd do, but make no meaningful change.
        • MichaelBurge 10y ago
          The answer is he's said 6 years(3 terms) in the House and 12 years(2 terms) in the Senate. The document is supposed to be an overview.
          • orf 10y ago
            > The document is supposed to be an overview. I thought it was a contract
          • kbenson 10y ago
            Low term limits are a double edged sword. On the one hand, you want to get new blood in the system. On the other, you don't want to throw away all the experience the representative has accumulated. how effective do you think someone really is in the first 2-4 years? 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) or even senate (6) -> senate (6) -> congress (2) -> senate (6) This would force representatives into other positions, while allowing them to capitalize on (and us to benefit from) their experience. We have a little of this already in advancement from congress to senate.
• d0lph 10y ago
  Cached version, since the site seems unresponsive. 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 https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp...
• mlmartin 10y ago
  "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'.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • pavlov 10y ago
    Also, if your country happens to be one of those that refuse to accept one-sided deportations from USA, you won't get a visa anymore: "... Cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back."
    • mrep 10y ago
      Excuse my ignorance, but why is that a bad thing? From what I remember, visa holders staying longer than they are allotted is the number 1 source of illegal immigration.
      • bduerst 10y ago
        Because only the tiniest fraction of a percent of tourists overstay visas, and tourism is $1.5 trillion industry in the U.S. Denying tourists from entire countries will result in a loss of jobs. You don't cut of your arm because of a papercut.
      • RealGeek 10y ago
        > visa holders staying longer than they are allotted is the number 1 source of illegal immigration. Trump's own wife overstayed and worked illegally on a visitor visa.
  • clifanatic 10y ago
    Free colonoscopy though.
• beachstartup 10y ago
  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.
  • waterphone 10y ago
    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.
• hacker_9 10y ago
  "limit, freeze, eliminate, ban, withdraw, label, end, remove, suspend and cancel" Just some of the words that stuck out to me.
  • deadringerr 10y ago
    He had an entire TV show about firing people. He appears to prefer to destroy rather than create.
    • Nadya 10y ago
      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....
      • pvelagal 10y ago
        "A meritocracy, as things should be, rather than being based on race/gender/filling some sort of diversity quota".. wonder when AI beats humans at chess and go, where does meritocracy stand ? Are Japanese/european cars better than US' ? Is protectionism, which rust belt states voted for, bad ? Looks like at the end of the day, people matter and there should be a place for educated and un/undereducated.
        • Nadya 10y ago
          >Looks like at the end of the day, people matter and there should be a place for educated and un/undereducated. So what makes a white or asian person the "better choice" than the black or latino person? Why should their race be a deciding factor in whether or not they are hired for a position? Education opens opportunities - especially in knowledge-based fields. I'll take a strong, uneducated worker for a manual labor job over an intelligent toothpick because the stronger worker will be better for the job. At the end of the day, why should [x] be chosen over [y] if [x] is better suited for the job? Is [x] not a person? Does [x] not matter? The only reason to select [y] is to pay a lower wage, they are easier to take advantage of, racism, or sexism.
• geofft 10y ago
  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).
  • monknomo 10y ago
    They're fucked. They likely won't lose their jobs, but they won't be able to expand or replace attrition. We've seen this movie before, during the downturn, and evidence points to 4 years (or more) of this crap. Trump has expressed a preference for private industry to do things for the government, because they do it better. Accenture, Deloitte and KPMG are prolly the federal IT of the future
    • hanginghyena 10y ago
      That's not awful, btw. The one upside of a large consulting firm is you can retain decent talent for boring projects by bouncing them around between assignments.... but you still have a single entity to hold accountable afterwards. Plus a certain percentage of these people take the diverse base of experience and go start something useful. Teaching a bunch of smart, ambitious people about how the process actually works and then letting them go start their own operation seems like a recipe for job creation.... (and finding better ways to replace the status quo)
      • monknomo 10y ago
        The trouble is that the government systems that are created are typically something only the government can/wants to do. Like "a system for issuing a permit" or "a system for quantifying the impact of permits issued". I think there is a more limited chance at job creation than you might think. Also, in practice, contractors build a thing as fast as they can, then leave and never come back. Agencies that lean heavily on contractors generally don't have a deep bench of technical talent, so they get stuck with a maintenance nightmare that they didn't build and have a hard time understanding. My feeling is that contractors tend to build differently than people who will have to support the system for however long the law it is enacting exists...
• thetrb 10y ago
  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
  • kafkaesq 10y ago
    Remove two existing regulations for every new regulation On the bright side, this is a sure-fire recipe for deadlock.
    • pasquinelli 10y ago
      or for ballooning the size and complexity of each regulation, as each new regulation has to fold into itself two existing regulations that need to be removed for the sake of this plan.
      • spinlock 10y ago
        That's been happening forever. Have you ever wondered why the law that says you can keep your healthcare when you leave your job is called the Combined Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA)?
        • mrfusion 10y ago
          If it's cheaper for employers to buy insurance why is cobra always so expensive?
          • spinlock 10y ago
            It's not cheaper for your employer. Your employer will typically cover some of the cost of health care then leave the rest for you to cover. When you leave a job, you have to pay both the premium you've been paying plus the premium your former employer had been paying. COBRA is not a free lunch. It just means you're allowed to order off of the same menu as your former employer.
• _RPM 10y ago
  And this post has been censored from HN's liberal agenda! edit: right after people started calling "them" out, it was unflagged.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • dragthor 10y ago
    Why is this flagged? Someone please provide a reason. Thanks.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    • douche 10y ago
      You know why. There are a lot of people that are still angry and in shock.
    • snowwrestler 10y ago
      I did not flag this, but I often flag general political stuff because you can read and talk about that anywhere. I believe HN is at its best on technical topics or topics directly related to technical merit (for example, encryption backdoor policy fight).
    • notatoad 10y ago
      we already had a "trump won the election" thread. Isn't that enough US politics on HN for the day? This is not new, it was published weeks ago. If i wanted to see more election stuff i'd go to reddit. or just about anywhere else on the internet today.
      • ainot 10y ago
        No, it isn't. If Clinton won half the front page would be Clinton propaganda.
• woodruffw 10y ago
  This reads like Buzz Windrip's list from It Can't Happen Here. It can happen here.
  • dv35z 10y ago
    Totally agree with you. Just read that book a few months ago. Scary similarities, and prescient (let's hope not too much).
• sremani 10y ago
  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.
  • dkraft 10y ago
    2016 - HNN becomes the youtube comments of reddit of digg
• knowaveragejoe 10y ago
  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.
  • rewrew 10y ago
    Well, there are many truly crazy and stupid regulations already on the books, plus you could do this by simply empowering the Federal Oversight Committee (which does this anyway) to just do more removals. So that one actually has a relatively simple path to achieve it.
  • cyberferret 10y ago
    That one popped out at me too - 1 in 2 out?? It's not like decluttering a house - these are the fundamental building blocks of society...
    • andromeduck 10y ago
      Well I'm sure there's still a lot of opportunities to combine and simplify existing regulations. You wouldn't be able to do it forever but I don't think we'll run out this term.
    • trav4225 10y ago
      No offense, but the overwhelming majority of them are not (IMO).
      • cyberferret 10y ago
        Fair enough. But then shouldn't the process me "Lets sit down and look at these, and take out the ones that are just not applicable nowadays?". This tit-for-tat style bargaining usually just ends up with both sides compromising or making rash decisions which may end up with the baby being thrown out with the bath water...
• josephpmay 10y ago
  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.
  • sctb 10y ago
    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.
  • giarc 10y ago
    I'd also like to know why it's flagged. It's a very important document right now.
• scosman 10y ago
  He's calling executive actions unconstitutional. Let's hope he sticks to that.
  • Smaug123 10y ago
    No, it's describing the actions he's going to repeal. "Repeal those actions which were unconstitutional", not "repeal the actions, which are unconstitutional".
    • spinlock 10y ago
      this is where the difference between "which" and "that" is important.
    • scosman 10y ago
      I don't see the quote you mention in the linked article. However, the wording is ambiguous.
      • Smaug123 10y ago
        I was paraphrasing, not quoting. I don't think the wording is ambiguous, but it's deliberately easy to misread on skimming the document.
  • archgoon 10y ago
    No, the wording is ambiguous. I'd interpret it as a subset of Obama's executive orders are unconstitutional.
  • ComteDeLaFere 10y ago
    Doesn't he mean executive orders? I believe those are considered law, while executive actions are simply directional. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/11/20/365467914/so-just-what-is-an-executive-action-anyway http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/11/20/365467914/... EDIT: Never mind, he said ...cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama.
• ComteDeLaFere 10y ago
  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.
• andromeduck 10y ago
  Seems pretty reasonable. I remain optimistic.
• ninjakeyboard 10y ago
  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.
  • badestrand 10y ago
    There are several drastic terms like that, e.g. "Cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back.". When entering negotiations with such a threat you will get what you want, he will be able to easily dictate changes to NAFTA and every country will take their people back. I am not even sure this is such a bad strategy.
    • kuschku 10y ago
      But that’s not how the world sees it. Many countries will see his request literally, and just completely refuse anything. An example of such a miscommunication in Europe right now: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37799805 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37799805
  • elchief 10y ago
    I'm curious whether Canada/US revert to the older FTA if NAFTA goes away...
  • zardo 10y ago
    >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.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  • giarc 10y ago
    I imagine in the end it will be renegotiate rather than leave. If you look here [0] you will see just how important us Canadian's are to you. 0 - http://www.businessinsider.com/state-and-country-trade-maps-2015-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/state-and-country-trade-maps-...
• cesarbs 10y ago
  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.
  • mudil 10y ago
    The FDA thing is really really scary if you are sick. This situation is clearly illustrated in the movie Dallas Buyer's Club.
    • Clubber 10y ago
      Yes, that's also the primary reason EpiPen can charge so much for their device. Their competitors' products were blocked / backlogged by the FDA. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/01/492235796/fda-fees-on-industry-havent-fixed-delays-in-generic-drug-approvals http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/01/49223579...
      • heartbreak 10y ago
        Isn't that throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Individual data points of a regulation being used for a corrupt end, doesn't mean the regulation is worthless and should be removed.
        • Clubber 10y ago
          I didn't intend to suggest throwing out the FDA. I was just making a point that, like everything, it isn't perfect and can be improved. The point that EpiPen was given temporary monopoly by the FDA was almost completely lost in most of the news stories I read. It's a facet of the story that I think is important, but left out. To be an informed citizenry, we need to know all the angles and be able to filter the BS. Kudo's to NPR for bothering to get the full story.
• icantdrive55 10y ago
  I am wondering when this will be taken down, or revised. "G---dam it, why didn't anyone tell me about The Wayback Machine!" sorry President. I'll be honest, this is the first time I have seen this, and I'm generally impressed. Actually, I'm thinking of a building simple website that keeps track of every promise on that contract. He is going to have a busy 100 days.
• jdc0589 10y ago
  > 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.
  • fisherjeff 10y ago
    In addition to that, I'm not sure what the benefit is to energy producers - oil prices are already not far above a 15-year low and domestic crude production is at a 25-year high, currently almost 10% of global consumption. Even without subsidies or other incentives, I just can't see where the demand comes from to drive significant oil supply increases. I'm genuinely curious what the restrictions are that are throttling our energy industry.
    • knz 10y ago
      > I'm genuinely curious what the restrictions are that are throttling our energy industry. "Environmental regulation". Who needs clean air or water. Superfunds Sites are cheap to clean up right?
      • sp332 10y ago
        Superfund sites are expensive, and that's exactly why they're great for the economy.
        • rthille 10y ago
          Might as well do the "pay people to bury money in coal mines and let people dig it up" then.
• lcfcjs 10y ago
  Yeah cuz who needs health care and any attempts at reversing climate change?
• carlob 10y ago
  Wow did he just take a page directly from Berlusconi's book? Berlusconi did the exact same 100 days contract about ten years ago!
  • DanBC 10y ago
    100 day plans are very common in business world, epecially among directors of medium - large companies.
  • mr_tristan 10y ago
    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._Roosevelt%27s_presidency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_100_days_of_Franklin_D._...
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
• b_emery 10y ago
  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-sector-payroll-jobs.html http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/10/public-and-private...
  • thatfrenchguy 10y ago
    Classic, you never make conservatives accountable for this kind of things.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • chrismeller 10y ago
    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.
    • akiselev 10y ago
      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
• mark242 10y ago
  If the Secretary of the Treasury designates China as a currency manipulator, your new iPhone will wind up costing you $2000. What madness.
  • JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    > your new iPhone will wind up costing...$2000 Donald Trump implored his fans to boycott Apple's products in February [1]. [1] http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/19/politics/donald-trump-apple-boycott/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/19/politics/donald-trump-apple-bo...
  • mevile 10y ago
    It will end up being made in the US though.
    • nabla9 10y ago
      Not US, Vietnam. Foxconn has manufacturing plant in Vietnam. Vietnam is cheaper than China.
      • giarc 10y ago
        I spoke with a business owner during a real "Going Out Of Business Sale". They had a unfinished furniture store (buy a wood table that hasn't been finished, and finish it yourself etc). They had been making everything in Canada (where the store was located) using Canadian labour and paying Canadian wages. He said he could no longer compete with the companies that would send raw wood to Vietnam, have citizens build the products for $0.17/hour and ship it back. He also didn't want to go through the incredible logistics of all that, so he just closed down his business.
  • douche 10y ago
    If it really becomes a big deal, Apple can move the factory back state-side. They are getting to the point where Chinese labor is getting expensive enough that they are automating manufacturing and replacing people with robots over there anyway. Human labor is becoming increasingly irrelevant.
• pavlov 10y ago
  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.
  • japhyr 10y ago
    > 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.
    • usaphp 10y ago
      > "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
      • japhyr 10y ago
        I don't find it silly for several reasons: - My definition of "good businessman" is more than just maximizing one person's profits over all other considerations. - It's clear that Trump has achieved a significant portion of his gains through legal threats. He has underpaid contractors, and his main response has been "Sue me if you want the rest of your money. But it will cost you more than it's worth to sue me." This is not my idea of a "good businessman". - I don't have any faith in his stated net worth. I wonder what his actual worth is, if you could get an accurate assessment of his assets. I also have no idea how his election affects his actual net worth.
• cybertronic 10y ago
  This is so Berlusconi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_the_Italians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_the_Italians
  • jplahn 10y ago
    Or so Newt? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America
    • ep103 10y ago
      Well, considering Newt is one of Trump's key advisers....
      • a2m 10y ago
        nope. that's not a point.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • mulletboy 10y ago
    Came here for this. http://i.imgur.com/UzFYJM8.png http://i.imgur.com/UzFYJM8.png
• skywhopper 10y ago
  "THIRD, cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities." Is this explained anywhere?
  • loeber 10y ago
    From Google: "A sanctuary city is a city in the United States or Canada that adopts local policies designed to not prosecute people solely for being an undocumented individual in the country in which they are currently living. These practices can be by law (de jure) or they can be in fact (de facto)."
  • savanaly 10y ago
    Had to google that one myself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city
    • s_kilk 10y ago
      Wait, so he'll be cutting all federal funding to cities like New York, LA and San Francisco?
      • icelancer 10y ago
        As long as they remain sanctuary cities, yes.
      • giarc 10y ago
        I'm just guessing, but I imagine it means all federal funding related to immigration enforcement... not all federal funding.
  • owyn 10y ago
    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.html http://www.apsanlaw.com/law-246.List-of-Sanctuary-cities.htm... 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.
• ainot 10y ago
  > Completely ignorant position. Completely insulting and repulsive. Perhaps you were searching for "basket of deplorables"?
  • ejstronge 10y ago
    I sympathize with the pain of being called 'ignorant', but we need to get away from the fear of calling things as they are. The response could have been started differently - 'that statement does not recognize the substantial subsidies in...' - but pundits have begun to bristle at being called wrong. The proliferation of misinformation/lies has been a huge issue this campaign, and we would do well to limit it whenever possible.
  • threeseed 10y ago
    It is by definition ignorant which means "lacking knowledge or awareness of a specific issue". It was not a personal slight. It was not intended to be insulting not repulsive. And I am confused why on earth you would bring basket of deplorables into this. It is quite clear though that you are looking at everything as an attack against Trump and conservatism which it isn't. https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=ainot https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=ainot
    • melling 10y ago
      Yes, but i am well aware of the problem. You seem to be unaware of the fact the oil/gas advantage doesn't matter with many Republicans. Would that qualify as ignorant? You are screaming that we need to "level the playing field", while I'm pointing out that we currently need to make progress in the current political environment.
      • serge2k 10y ago
        > Would that qualify as ignorant That wouldn't make them ignorant, it would make them something else.
  • sctb 10y ago
    We detached this flagged comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12915400 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12915400.
• nickpsecurity 10y ago
  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.
  • novia 10y ago
    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.
    • davidw 10y ago
      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
• SolarUpNote 10y ago
  Replace health insurance with health savings accounts?
  • hexis 10y ago
    As it's currently structured, HSA's are usually a part of a health insurance plan with high deductibles. It's not an either/or thing, it's a both/and thing.
  • riskable 10y ago
    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.
    • webXL 10y ago
      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.
    • sandesp 10y ago
      Hey do you have another working link for Public penetration test results: https://ptr.iot.nist.gov/A2L7P9D23345 https://ptr.iot.nist.gov/A2L7P9D23345 you posted a month ago. I had to send a message here because Hackernews does not allow direct messages.
• rsp1984 10y ago
  Apart from the content, why is it even called a "contract"? There's no terms and obligations for the "American voter" in there.
  • pyre 10y ago
    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.
  • r00fus 10y ago
    It sounds like a contract of adhesion or perhaps a contract in a mafia sense. I have no power to decline or negotiate this contract. I did not vote for this, nor did the majority of Americans.
• ainot 10y ago
  Why is it when I post garbage comments, they get downvoted. But when people post garbage comments that slam one or more of: 1) Republican 2) Christian 3) Conservative 4) Anyone from Texas except Austin 5) Anyone who works in the energy industry outside solar They don't get downvoted?
  • Retra 10y ago
    Because they disagree. Seems obvious enough.
  • sctb 10y ago
    Please stop posting them. We've detached this from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12915030 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12915030. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    • ainot 10y ago
      I wasn't saying that I literally or intentionally post garbage comments. That was rhetoric, to prove a point. I'd assumed HN readers and moderators would understand that.
• igravious 10y ago
  SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections. Pardon my naivety but who does this target?
  • martythemaniak 10y ago
    Near as I can tell, his second campaign chief Paul Manafort.
  • libpcap 10y ago
    AIPAC.
  • meric 10y ago
    Saudi Arabia. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-13/saudi-arabia-has-funded-20-hillarys-presidential-campaign-saudi-crown-prince-claims http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-13/saudi-arabia-has-fu...
• themihai 10y ago
  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).
  • throwaway13337 10y ago
    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.
• hatsunearu 10y ago
  He's handing America's world dominance handedly to China. Start learning Chinese folks, America is done.
  • meric 10y ago
    How does American world dominance help the people who voted for Trump?
    • warlox 10y ago
      Free trade lowers prices for everyone. The poors won't be able to buy food if Trump follows through with protectionism.
• danieltillett 10y ago
  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.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
• fredgrott 10y ago
  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..
• jotadambalakiri 10y ago
  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.
  • usaphp 10y ago
    I guess voting for Trump is considered signing your side of the contract
  • NolF 10y ago
    He was voted for president democratically, that's the populous signing their part of the contract.
• e0m 10y ago
  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!
  • pdonis 10y ago
    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.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
• dougmany 10y ago
  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.
  • sean_patel 10y ago
    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).
    • michaelchisari 10y ago
      And you find that cutting federal funding entirely is a reasonable, proportional response?
      • sean_patel 10y ago
        Yes. Bigly.
      • pmorici 10y ago
        That is how the federal government pressures states to do _everything_
    • 10y ago
• tn13 10y ago
  Seems reasonable.
• finid 10y ago
  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
  • waterphone 10y ago
    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-california http://prospect.org/article/populist-road-hell-term-limits-c...
    • finid 10y ago
      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 ...
      • zaphods-towel 10y ago
        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?
        • ViViDboarder 10y ago
          Yup. I'd rather see a term limit in the Supreme Court. Doubt that's going to happen any time soon...
          • nommm-nommm 10y ago
            Supreme Court doesn't have "term limits" so they can make legal decisions without worrying about being replaced.
• finid 10y ago
  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.
  • elchief 10y ago
    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
    • sago 10y ago
      Buy BTC, now. It's going to be yuge.
    • waterphone 10y ago
      I take it Trump hasn't heard of Bitcoin.
      • elchief 10y ago
        Nor have most poor Mexicans I assume
        • waterphone 10y ago
          They'll figure it out if other methods get cut off. It's not hard.
          • jjawssd 10y ago
            It is hard. And a little bit more hard without good Internet connectivity. And maybe even a little bit very illegal to perform the transaction. Not that it can't be done. It just cannot be done by the gen pop.
• rahilsondhi 10y ago
  Are any TN visa holders worried about Trump wanting to withdraw from NAFTA?
  • FreedomToCreate 10y ago
    Its not a clean cut procedure that Trump could execute and bang, all TN visas holders are out. There is a significant work force on TN visas working at stat ups and major Fortune 500 companies, holding positions that are critical to those organizations. To have these people leave would not be cheap for these organizations and Trump will have to consider this.
  • Clobbersmith 10y ago
    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-1.3657673 http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-nafta-trade-1.3657...
• jernfrost 10y ago
  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.
  • _betty_ 10y ago
    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.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• datashovel 10y ago
  "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.
• theptip 10y ago
  > 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-investigated-insider-trading/ https://theintercept.com/2015/05/07/congress-argues-cant-inv... [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
  • loceng 10y ago
    It's scary really. Industry has the profits to pay for the marketing anyone needs to get elected, however it could take a 'lifetime' for someone who's educated and aware enough to be naturally get into power.
  • hyperion2010 10y ago
    The thing I worry about more here (amazingly) is the answer to the question "If representatives don't have enough experience to write new laws then who will write them?"
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• theptip 10y ago
  > 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
  • oceanswave 10y ago
    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
    • math0ne 10y ago
      Yeah I just can't imagine how this could be enforced.
    • theptip 10y ago
      Can you elaborate your first sentence? Not really well-versed in the hairy issues you raise. This will (necessarily) require more oversight. But I think we should be prepared to accept some regulation/oversight of the political process itself, given how critical it is to the functioning of society.
  • RealGeek 10y ago
    Even though Republicans have House and Senate majority, I still don't see any of this getting through. Those politicians won't self-destruct their careers.
    • theptip 10y ago
      Yeah, while Trump got elected on a wave of anti-establishment rancor, most of Congress is still the establishment. I predict that no turkeys will be voting for Christmas, and no Congressmen will be voting for limits on lobbyist dollars.
• skizm 10y ago
  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.
  • Synaesthesia 10y ago
    Let's face it we're mostly stuck here. Only a small handful of people can leave the planet.
• Waterluvian 10y ago
  Federal prison is probably not as terrible as some of the conditions Mexicans flee from.
  • kaonashi 10y ago
    I guess throwing a million kids in prison is cool then.
  • laichzeit0 10y ago
    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.
  • sangnoir 10y ago
    How much money can you send back to your family every month from Federal prison?
• _audakel 10y ago
  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?
• _audakel 10y ago
  cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama. I think we need some claification on what is "constitutional"
  • btym 10y ago
    I will be replacing "unconstitutional" in my head with "against Donald Trump's business interests" for the next few years.
  • FireBeyond 10y ago
    Right, because as it is it seems pretty much synonymous with "things I do not like"
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• meritt 10y ago
  Today, Trump appointed Myron Ebell (a massive climate change denier) to head up the EPA. We're so utterly and completely fucked.
  • sean_patel 10y ago
    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!
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  • NoPiece 10y ago
    Ebell is heading the EPA transition team, not the agency.
  • msd81257 10y ago
    >Trump and Myron talking >Trump: "Hey Myron, thoughts on climate change?" >Myron: "Oh it's nothing, the polar bears are just brown and cities are going underwater, but your ozone-damaging hairspray won't escape your dressing room (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU2p6YakNJg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU2p6YakNJg) while you grope a supermodel" Please Elon Musk, if you're reading this, make Tesla and SolarCity come faster so we can still experience snow no matter who runs this country
• inostia 10y ago
  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.
  • grzm 10y ago
    I agree that there was noise regarding Trump not having a clear plan. That said, - Did you check out either candidate's websites? - Were you aware of Hillary's equivalent?[0] Was this reported in the news sites you frequent? [0]: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ I'm asking the questions honestly. I did know of Trump's contract (though I don't remember how I came across it), and didn't look at the Clinton campaign site. I don't recall anything in the news about either.
    • inostia 10y ago
      I did look at both candidate's websites. Though a link to this .pdf was not easy to find. This is exactly the sort of thing that I expect the media to link me to, rather than an (after-the-fact) HN post. I read news websites every single day and never saw anything close to the clarity of his positions presented here.
      • grzm 10y ago
        To be fair, is it the media's responsibility to make sure an important policy document is easy to find? What does it say about the Trump campaign that the document was hard to find on their own campaign website?
        • inostia 10y ago
          That's fair. But it does seem like there's some suppression here. I always thought the "mainstream media bias" thing was just a soundbite for conservatives. But tarrifs for companies wanting to move factories overseas? Term limits for Congress people? Those are legitimate proposals that I never heard about (except in the debates). I don't have time to look for documents on candidates websites. I rely on (and pay) the media to present information because I'm busy. This should have been reported fairly, though maybe that bias is actually true.
• anondon 10y ago
  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.
  • esotericsean 10y ago
    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.
    • laichzeit0 10y ago
      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.
      • RealGeek 10y ago
        How will a wall stop illegal immigration? Couldn't traffickers just use ladders to climb the wall?
        • 10y ago
• mrschwabe 10y ago
  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.
  • allemagne 10y ago
    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.
    • mrschwabe 10y ago
      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-election-headquarters http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/presidential-...
• kylecordes 10y ago
  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.
  • grzm 10y ago
    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?
• shermozle 10y ago
  http://hastrumpmadeamericagreatagainyet.com/ http://hastrumpmadeamericagreatagainyet.com/
• xenadu02 10y ago
  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.
  • pmorici 10y ago
    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?
    • davesque 10y ago
      That's because the system you're now paying into is saving the lives of people who would have had no healthcare otherwise. Like it or not, you live in a society with other people. If you want your society to be fair and just, you have to make some sacrifices.
      • gcp 10y ago
        If you are a healthy and/or young person, your rate will always go up in any social system. There no way around this. Germany has universal healthcare, but high income citizens can (could?) opt out to private insurance. It's good when you're young and single as it's way cheaper. But for most people it becomes more expensive than the goverment system by the time they're married and get kids.
    • hibikir 10y ago
• tw04 10y ago
  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.
  • samfisher83 10y ago
    The president doesn't make the tax plan congress does, but given he has a republican congress he can get a lot of those things passed.
    • tw04 10y ago
      That's the point, he'll get the things passed that are going to hurt the country, and the only things that are actually GOOD ideas will sit on the floor because congress is never going to vote to limit its own power.
      • krige 10y ago
        So four more years of Obama?
  • giarc 10y ago
    >A middle-class family with two children will get a 35% tax cut. He's basically Oprah with tax cuts. Kidding aside, I think all politicians promise wide tax cuts, and this "contract" was written prior to him winning. So take most with a grain of salt.
• tehabe 10y ago
  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.
  • pitaj 10y ago
    > 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?
    • tehabe 10y ago
      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.
• forgingahead 10y ago
  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.
• jonstewart 10y ago
  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++.
• chenster 10y ago
  In other words, it's all other people / country's fault.
• chenster 10y ago
  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?
  • grzm 10y ago
    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.
    • davesque 10y ago
      Not the majority, though.
      • grzm 10y ago
        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.
        • chenster 10y ago
          > 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-undocumented-immigrants-pay-billions-in-taxes http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/study-undocum.... I find it ironic.
          • grzm 10y ago
            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?
• xenadu02 10y ago
  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.
• d-sc 10y ago
  Question: What are the analytics that this website contains to track the potential support/non support of viewers of the document?
• dr_ 10y ago
  "... 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.
• readhn 10y ago
  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?
• Blackthorn 10y ago
  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.
• nameisu 10y ago
  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.
• bronz 10y ago
  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-juanita-broaddrick-the-woman-accusing-bill-clinton-of-rape http://www.npr.org/2016/10/09/497291071/a-brief-history-of-j... if anyone can point to evidence that proves her wrong then please let me know. im impartial.
• hal9000xp 10y ago
  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).
• plandis 10y ago
  Great so insurers can go back to dropping/denying people. Why does Trump want US citizens to die because they cannot get health care?
• johndoe90 10y ago
  >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?
  • nommm-nommm 10y ago
    LGBTs didn't gain the rights to marry by executive order issued by Obama. They gained those rights largely by judicial review.
• PSeitz 10y ago
  This document is from before the election, it's invalid now.
• JulianMorrison 10y ago
  "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"?
  • Aoyagi 10y ago
    Yes, but I don't see any parallels there.
• beatpanda 10y ago
  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
• projektfu 10y ago
  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.
• crb002 10y ago
  "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.