7 ms·

Of course, the irony is that Trump, an ardent capitalist and pursuer of wealth, ran on a platform of decreasing the influence of money in politics. According to

Of course, the irony is that Trump, an ardent capitalist and pursuer of wealth, ran on a platform of decreasing the influence of money in politics. According to his 100 day plan, he is going to put a number of serious barriers on lobbying. I found this out after the election. It wouldn't have changed my vote had I known about it before the election (way too many other issues with Trump) but, at the very least, it is a hope that maybe something good will come out of this presidential cycle.

pasquinelli 10y ago
This is why I say there's no excuse for voting trump. "According to his hundred day plan..." you have no reason to believe a word he says and every reason not to. afaic, voting for trump's like buying a car off him, or lending him money, or attending his university, or signing an employment contract with him, and so on. He says what he needs to.
- r_smart 10y ago
  Step two is to demonstrate how these claims don't apply to the other choice.
throwaway729 10y ago
> he is going to put a number of serious barriers on lobbying All of the most influential people in his transition team are family members, career politicians, or industry lobbyists/partisans. Trump's plan doesn't decrease the power of money in politics; it concentrates the power of money by neutering other forms of influence.
- blowski 10y ago
  The UK government is in the process of doing this as well. Charities are not allowed to lobby government with raised funds. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35509117 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35509117
chasing 10y ago
He literally had working on his campaign the guy who headed Citizens United, the group behind the court case that allowed tremendous amounts of unchecked money into the political system. Trump has no interest in reducing the influence of money in politics.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  > Trump has no interest in reducing the influence of money in politics If you wanted to fix it, do you vote for the person who said he wants to change it or the person who profited from that system for decades? Both parties need to end if you want change on this.
  - chasing 10y ago
    Citizens United vs FEC is only ~7 years old and, if I recall, Hillary only ran in one election during that time frame. The same number that Trump ran in. Regardless: The whole idea of campaign finance reform is that it's too powerful: Most politicians can't do the right thing because it would hobble them too much in elections.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      >Citizens United vs FEC is only ~7 years old and, if I recall, Hillary only ran in one election during that time frame. The same number that Trump ran in. We didn't have corruption prior to Citizens United? Here's my purposed rule, if you take a nickel from a company you don't get to vote on anything that would effect them. No way in hell the neo-cons or the neo-liberals in Washington pass that. >Regardless: The whole idea of campaign finance reform is that it's too powerful: Most politicians can't do the right thing because it would hobble them too much in elections. That might be changing. People are pissed at the establishment. This is the first time since the 50's that the person who spent the most money lost.
      - chasing 10y ago
        > That might be changing. Maybe! But now there's going to be even more monied interests spending hard to make sure it doesn't. > This is the first time since the 50's that the person who spent the most money lost. This is neither here nor there. Simply spending money isn't the issue.
user837387 10y ago
The guy lies and lies and lies. The only way to know what he is really going to do is to wait for him to do it. However, calling him the smartest, most powerful, and most beautiful person ever seems to go a long way with him so I would at least try that to try to get him on your side. Problem is, everybody seems to know that he is a sucker for complement.
klipt 10y ago
> According to his 100 day plan His 100 day plan says a lot of things, like 'cut taxes for the middle class', but if you look at his actual tax plan most of the benefits go to the top 1% and many middle class earners (especially single parents) will see their taxes increase: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/11/27/some-middle-class-trump-plan-would-mean-tax-increase/94427186/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/11/... I wouldn't trust his 100 day plan further than I can throw it.

pasquinelli 10y ago

This is why I say there's no excuse for voting trump. "According to his hundred day plan..." you have no reason to believe a word he says and every reason not to. afaic, voting for trump's like buying a car off him, or lending him money, or attending his university, or signing an employment contract with him, and so on. He says what he needs to.

r_smart 10y ago
Step two is to demonstrate how these claims don't apply to the other choice.

throwaway729 10y ago

> he is going to put a number of serious barriers on lobbying All of the most influential people in his transition team are family members, career politicians, or industry lobbyists/partisans. Trump's plan doesn't decrease the power of money in politics; it concentrates the power of money by neutering other forms of influence.

blowski 10y ago
The UK government is in the process of doing this as well. Charities are not allowed to lobby government with raised funds. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35509117 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35509117

chasing 10y ago

He literally had working on his campaign the guy who headed Citizens United, the group behind the court case that allowed tremendous amounts of unchecked money into the political system. Trump has no interest in reducing the influence of money in politics.

cmdrfred 10y ago
> Trump has no interest in reducing the influence of money in politics If you wanted to fix it, do you vote for the person who said he wants to change it or the person who profited from that system for decades? Both parties need to end if you want change on this.
- chasing 10y ago
  Citizens United vs FEC is only ~7 years old and, if I recall, Hillary only ran in one election during that time frame. The same number that Trump ran in. Regardless: The whole idea of campaign finance reform is that it's too powerful: Most politicians can't do the right thing because it would hobble them too much in elections.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    >Citizens United vs FEC is only ~7 years old and, if I recall, Hillary only ran in one election during that time frame. The same number that Trump ran in. We didn't have corruption prior to Citizens United? Here's my purposed rule, if you take a nickel from a company you don't get to vote on anything that would effect them. No way in hell the neo-cons or the neo-liberals in Washington pass that. >Regardless: The whole idea of campaign finance reform is that it's too powerful: Most politicians can't do the right thing because it would hobble them too much in elections. That might be changing. People are pissed at the establishment. This is the first time since the 50's that the person who spent the most money lost.
    - chasing 10y ago
      > That might be changing. Maybe! But now there's going to be even more monied interests spending hard to make sure it doesn't. > This is the first time since the 50's that the person who spent the most money lost. This is neither here nor there. Simply spending money isn't the issue.

user837387 10y ago

The guy lies and lies and lies. The only way to know what he is really going to do is to wait for him to do it. However, calling him the smartest, most powerful, and most beautiful person ever seems to go a long way with him so I would at least try that to try to get him on your side. Problem is, everybody seems to know that he is a sucker for complement.

klipt 10y ago

> According to his 100 day plan His 100 day plan says a lot of things, like 'cut taxes for the middle class', but if you look at his actual tax plan most of the benefits go to the top 1% and many middle class earners (especially single parents) will see their taxes increase: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/11/27/some-middle-class-trump-plan-would-mean-tax-increase/94427186/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/11/... I wouldn't trust his 100 day plan further than I can throw it.