10 ms·

I find it very interesting, the constant A/B tests that Trump is keen on. Nobody rational would dare to upset the entrepreneurship in US, so I kinda want this

I find it very interesting, the constant A/B tests that Trump is keen on. Nobody rational would dare to upset the entrepreneurship in US, so I kinda want this to happen, just to see how this will play out. Granted, I'm not planning to move to US really soon, so I might be biased, but I've really wanted for Brexit to happen and I'm EU. That is turning out as a disaster, just like rational people suggested. Trump has yet to truly permanently fuckup something so I started to wonder if I was wrong. I see that we're keeping our options open.

jmcgough 9y ago
The only clear consistency in his policy is undoing everything Obama did. It's really weird and petty.
- danjoc 9y ago
  That was his campaign platform. Why is keeping promises weird or petty?
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    It's absolutely petty. The job of president is to do whatever is best for the country, not to resolve grievances against the previous president by getting revenge at the expense of the country. And there are plenty of promises that Trump isn't keeping.
    - oceanbreeze83 9y ago
      is it proper to do what is right for the country even if that is opposite of what your campaign promises were and opposite of what the elextorate wanted? genuinely curious. not american, live in asia, so quite impartial
      - CydeWeys 9y ago
        Yes, it is. Previous presidents have had no problem doing what was right over upholding campaign promises (many of which quickly became outdated). It also doesn't help that many of Trump's campaign promises, like bringing back coal jobs or dictating Mexico's national construction budget, were completely impossible to uphold anyway. So we knew going into this anyway that a lot of his campaign promises were just lies to get elected, so he's going to break many of them anyway; upholding the petty ones that hurt the country while breaking all the rest is not redeeming, it's just shit layered on top of other shit.
        rhizome 9y ago
        What is an ethical framework that respects a candidate's motivation to promise impossible things in order to get elected? You can say, "duh, politicians lie," but this would seem to me to be well beyond that. Think of the implications, when the winner of an election can just say "lol jk."
        CydeWeys 9y ago
        I don't know. I'll tell you my ethical framework as a voter though -- be pragmatic and vote for whichever one is best, or least worst. Clinton wasn't as willing to make baseless promises as Trump was, which I think may have cost her. The audience she appealed to was also less willing to accept baseless promises, however.
        rhizome 9y ago
        > vote for whichever one is best, or least worst What does "is" mean there, when what is apparent is based on lies? Frankly I'm disappointed that you identify a failure of Clinton as not having lied enough. That is not the foundation of a government I want to survive.
        CydeWeys 9y ago
        Me neither. I'm not saying she should've lied more, I'm saying it's sad that that might have been to her advantage. The real problem is the media and the electorate just cannot handle a serial liar like Trump.
  - rhizome 9y ago
    It's not the promises that are petty, it's the goal.
  - woodruffw 9y ago
    Keeping promises is not weird or petty. Making petty promises is.
    - Oras 9y ago
      Yet he was elected by people for these petty promises
      - jmcgough 9y ago
        NPR had a good story the other day about the coalition of Trump's voter's, and how different the groups are. There were definitely those who voted for him and didn't expect him to keep his promises (promises that didn't make sense to most people with knowledge of economics), just to keep Hillary from winning. http://www.npr.org/2017/07/02/535240706/study-no-one-issue-clearly-unites-5-groups-of-trump-voters http://www.npr.org/2017/07/02/535240706/study-no-one-issue-c...
- perseusprime11 9y ago
  Completely agree. We will most likely have 16 years of an unproductive government that does not work for it's people. When Obama got elected, republicans opposed him and tried everything to make him a one term president. We now have Trump who is constantly being opposed by democrats and some of his own party. Nobody has passed any real meaningful change in the last 8 years and potentially the next 8 years. I think congress and senate are ridden with lifelong politicians who are only looking out for their interests. Thank god for private sector, we at least have companies like Amazon, Facebook, Google and Apple. I feel we need to have a real debate about what is working and what is not working about our current government, redefine the role of government for a new world. I don't see how the current setup will set us up for success against rising economies like China, Russia and India.
  - jmcgough 9y ago
    I sometimes feel like we got stuck with an early beta version of democracy (winner takes all elections, single candidate voting, no restriction on campaign durations, etc), with no easy upgrade path because politicians don't want to change a system that works for them. It's really frustrating to see how dysfunctional things have become, it's like a company that is more focused on politics and infighting than results, like Microsoft during the stack ranking days.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
    > We will most likely have 16 years of an unproductive government that does not work for it's people Millions of Americans have access to health care today that they simply did not have before the Affordable Care Act was passed. That is not unproductive, that is profoundly beneficial for real people. Throwing up your hands because "politicians" does nothing to fix the problems with a party completely unwilling to govern in a role of governance. Demanding that your Congressperson and Senators fight for meaningful change for Americans will make a real difference. Start there.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
- cryoshon 9y ago
  you misspelled "destructive and regressionist"
hashmal 9y ago
> I find it very interesting, the constant A/B tests that Trump is keen on. I think he's not doing A/B testing, he's just random…

jmcgough 9y ago

The only clear consistency in his policy is undoing everything Obama did. It's really weird and petty.

danjoc 9y ago
That was his campaign platform. Why is keeping promises weird or petty?
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  It's absolutely petty. The job of president is to do whatever is best for the country, not to resolve grievances against the previous president by getting revenge at the expense of the country. And there are plenty of promises that Trump isn't keeping.
  - oceanbreeze83 9y ago
    is it proper to do what is right for the country even if that is opposite of what your campaign promises were and opposite of what the elextorate wanted? genuinely curious. not american, live in asia, so quite impartial
    - CydeWeys 9y ago
      Yes, it is. Previous presidents have had no problem doing what was right over upholding campaign promises (many of which quickly became outdated). It also doesn't help that many of Trump's campaign promises, like bringing back coal jobs or dictating Mexico's national construction budget, were completely impossible to uphold anyway. So we knew going into this anyway that a lot of his campaign promises were just lies to get elected, so he's going to break many of them anyway; upholding the petty ones that hurt the country while breaking all the rest is not redeeming, it's just shit layered on top of other shit.
      - rhizome 9y ago
        What is an ethical framework that respects a candidate's motivation to promise impossible things in order to get elected? You can say, "duh, politicians lie," but this would seem to me to be well beyond that. Think of the implications, when the winner of an election can just say "lol jk."
        CydeWeys 9y ago
        I don't know. I'll tell you my ethical framework as a voter though -- be pragmatic and vote for whichever one is best, or least worst. Clinton wasn't as willing to make baseless promises as Trump was, which I think may have cost her. The audience she appealed to was also less willing to accept baseless promises, however.
        rhizome 9y ago
        > vote for whichever one is best, or least worst What does "is" mean there, when what is apparent is based on lies? Frankly I'm disappointed that you identify a failure of Clinton as not having lied enough. That is not the foundation of a government I want to survive.
        CydeWeys 9y ago
        Me neither. I'm not saying she should've lied more, I'm saying it's sad that that might have been to her advantage. The real problem is the media and the electorate just cannot handle a serial liar like Trump.
- rhizome 9y ago
  It's not the promises that are petty, it's the goal.
- woodruffw 9y ago
  Keeping promises is not weird or petty. Making petty promises is.
  - Oras 9y ago
    Yet he was elected by people for these petty promises
    - jmcgough 9y ago
      NPR had a good story the other day about the coalition of Trump's voter's, and how different the groups are. There were definitely those who voted for him and didn't expect him to keep his promises (promises that didn't make sense to most people with knowledge of economics), just to keep Hillary from winning. http://www.npr.org/2017/07/02/535240706/study-no-one-issue-clearly-unites-5-groups-of-trump-voters http://www.npr.org/2017/07/02/535240706/study-no-one-issue-c...
perseusprime11 9y ago
Completely agree. We will most likely have 16 years of an unproductive government that does not work for it's people. When Obama got elected, republicans opposed him and tried everything to make him a one term president. We now have Trump who is constantly being opposed by democrats and some of his own party. Nobody has passed any real meaningful change in the last 8 years and potentially the next 8 years. I think congress and senate are ridden with lifelong politicians who are only looking out for their interests. Thank god for private sector, we at least have companies like Amazon, Facebook, Google and Apple. I feel we need to have a real debate about what is working and what is not working about our current government, redefine the role of government for a new world. I don't see how the current setup will set us up for success against rising economies like China, Russia and India.
- jmcgough 9y ago
  I sometimes feel like we got stuck with an early beta version of democracy (winner takes all elections, single candidate voting, no restriction on campaign durations, etc), with no easy upgrade path because politicians don't want to change a system that works for them. It's really frustrating to see how dysfunctional things have become, it's like a company that is more focused on politics and infighting than results, like Microsoft during the stack ranking days.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- aaronbrethorst 9y ago
  > We will most likely have 16 years of an unproductive government that does not work for it's people Millions of Americans have access to health care today that they simply did not have before the Affordable Care Act was passed. That is not unproductive, that is profoundly beneficial for real people. Throwing up your hands because "politicians" does nothing to fix the problems with a party completely unwilling to govern in a role of governance. Demanding that your Congressperson and Senators fight for meaningful change for Americans will make a real difference. Start there.
- jacquesm 9y ago
cryoshon 9y ago
you misspelled "destructive and regressionist"

hashmal 9y ago

> I find it very interesting, the constant A/B tests that Trump is keen on. I think he's not doing A/B testing, he's just random…