4 ms·

And what are the repercussions if he does NOT achieve all these within the first 100 days? Will he step down? Come up with yet another plan? Contracts usually

And what are the repercussions if he does NOT achieve all these within the first 100 days? Will he step down? Come up with yet another plan? Contracts usually stipulate this as well. [Edit: And the downvote brigade strikes - for merely asking a genuine question. I guess this is an indication of the sort of thing that we can expect 'top down' from now on... Stay silent, never question, just obey the mandates... sigh] [Edit2: And now plenty of upvotes in support after my last edit, as well as useful replies - thank you for restoring my faith in democracy and the fact the people are willing to discuss and deliberate policies in a fair and rational manner.]

sushid 10y ago
100 day plans are nothing new. [0] It's a way of saying that the new administration will hit the ground running. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_hundred_days https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_hundred_days
- cyberferret 10y ago
  Cool - they do similar things in this country too. Strangely I've never heard it worded as a 'contract' though. 'Plan' and 'Contract' have entirely different connotations.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Our politicians like to use stupid language that projects confidence beyond what any reasonable person would possess. For example, presidential candidates are constantly referred to as "the next president of the United States," as if the outcome of the election were somehow predetermined.
    - torkable 10y ago
      /tinfoilhat implying its not
  - joeclark77 10y ago
    It is an homage to a 1994 "Contract with America" offered by the Republican Party's campaign for Congress. At that time they had been out of power for 40 years. They knew voters didn't like them, so instead of saying "Like us!", they said, "here, in writing, is what we'll do if you give us your vote". It was a good idea, and they won a major election which permanently changed the balance of power. 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.
agumonkey 10y ago
In France Hollande have been moving goal posts every time these 'N days' plans failed. He's now thinking about a second mandate. 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.
- mschuster91 10y ago
  > 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.
  - agumonkey 10y ago
    True, very true, too many high tension relationships between agents to evolve deeply and softly. But this is why I asked about weird yet new ideas about politics. For the sake of thought experiments. Should we have complexity dampening sub structure to ensure a form of fluid stability. Limiting group sizes, enforcing a structural clarity that can be communicated to the public in clearer and faster ways so we don't rely in behind the curtain representatives. 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.
    - mschuster91 10y ago
      > 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,_February_2014 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"...
busyant 10y ago
> And what are the repercussions if he does NOT achieve all these within the first 100 days? 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).
- deadringerr 10y ago
  This is probably my biggest frustration with Trump. Based on his campaign, I don't anticipate him being receptive to any form of accountability.
ant6n 10y ago
He's gonna say "so sue me"
RealGeek 10y ago
> And what are the repercussions if he does NOT achieve all these within the first 100 days? Will he step down? Come up with yet another plan? He will delete it from his website and claim it never existed.

sushid 10y ago

100 day plans are nothing new. [0] It's a way of saying that the new administration will hit the ground running. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_hundred_days https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_hundred_days

cyberferret 10y ago
Cool - they do similar things in this country too. Strangely I've never heard it worded as a 'contract' though. 'Plan' and 'Contract' have entirely different connotations.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Our politicians like to use stupid language that projects confidence beyond what any reasonable person would possess. For example, presidential candidates are constantly referred to as "the next president of the United States," as if the outcome of the election were somehow predetermined.
  - torkable 10y ago
    /tinfoilhat implying its not
- joeclark77 10y ago
  It is an homage to a 1994 "Contract with America" offered by the Republican Party's campaign for Congress. At that time they had been out of power for 40 years. They knew voters didn't like them, so instead of saying "Like us!", they said, "here, in writing, is what we'll do if you give us your vote". It was a good idea, and they won a major election which permanently changed the balance of power. 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.

agumonkey 10y ago

In France Hollande have been moving goal posts every time these 'N days' plans failed. He's now thinking about a second mandate. 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.

mschuster91 10y ago
> 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.
- agumonkey 10y ago
  True, very true, too many high tension relationships between agents to evolve deeply and softly. But this is why I asked about weird yet new ideas about politics. For the sake of thought experiments. Should we have complexity dampening sub structure to ensure a form of fluid stability. Limiting group sizes, enforcing a structural clarity that can be communicated to the public in clearer and faster ways so we don't rely in behind the curtain representatives. 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.
  - mschuster91 10y ago
    > 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,_February_2014 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"...

busyant 10y ago

> And what are the repercussions if he does NOT achieve all these within the first 100 days? 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).

deadringerr 10y ago
This is probably my biggest frustration with Trump. Based on his campaign, I don't anticipate him being receptive to any form of accountability.

ant6n 10y ago

He's gonna say "so sue me"

RealGeek 10y ago

> And what are the repercussions if he does NOT achieve all these within the first 100 days? Will he step down? Come up with yet another plan? He will delete it from his website and claim it never existed.