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.]
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.
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.
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.
> 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).
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.
> 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.
What if some of the super rich elites leveraged their economic might to counteract the effect of gerrymandering -- perhaps an endowment that explicitly offered a geographically sensitive housing subsidy based on a normalized model for how precincts _should_ be shaped could have significant effects if backed by the capital of a Gates or a Zuckerberg foundation?
I believe that mathematically fair models for precinct shape have been described[1] -- such model could provide the basis for estimating the gerrymander induced vote-reflects-voter-will-error -- and the subsidy system could encourage population shift to try and approximate the results that would occur if the precincts had actually been drawn "fairly" ...
Be involved and be informed, locally If not at a state or higher level.
- do note, that politicians (humans) have long since "hacked" the human cortex. They program you, and other humans by finding authority escalations, buffer overruns, Trojans and privileged executions all the time.
Right now, malware itself has become the OS.
To fix this, people need to be aware of how politics and cognition works.
I was thinking about this as well. I just learned about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact[0], which would at least cover situations (like this election) where electoral vote results that don't jive with the popular vote.
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.
> maybe it's my CS cursus speaking, maybe a more peer to peer system is needed.
Direct democracy can go badly wrong. Very badly wrong, and I don't neccessarily mean Hitler-level wrong. Just look at Switzerland, they are still struggling to implement a referendum from 2014 against freedom of movement in a way that doesn't kick them out of the EU (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_immigration_referendum,_...).
Given the election results, I wonder what 'd happen if there was a US-wide referendum with the simple question "Deport all undocumented persons"...
I'm torn but I kinda see where you're headed. Indirect democracy ensure a certain amount of resistance to the people's will in case they decide to sink the ship. Do I understand you correctly ?
ps: I misread your answer and went into a monologue, I'm rewriting this previous answer.
> Sorry, I should have been clearer. I didn't mean digital. I meant p2p in the abstract sense. Where the system interactions are simpler, less hierarchical and everybody is almost a peer. Right now people, the blood and roots of a nation are, pardon the pun, second class citizen that have to follow representatives out of trust without any direct power beside a vote. I say this democratic design isn't enough anymore. We need more educated people (better education is easily possible) that can organize more, understand and decide more, even if it means move their ass more, but at least they'll have real power, not just a ballot.
> Indirect democracy ensure a certain amount of resistance to the people's will in case they decide to sink the ship. Do I understand you correctly ?
Yep. But, as it can be seen with Trump (with the fact that Republicans control the legislative (Senate, Congress), the judicial (because they have at least one open Supreme Court post to fill, with potential for three more, and they're life-long!) and executive by way of "elected sheriffs, who came up with that nonsense anyway?!) and before with the Obama deadlock!, even a carefully crafted system of checks-and-balances cannot ensure that the ship "democracy" won't sink.
> We need more educated people (better education is easily possible) that can organize more, understand and decide more,
I fully agree with you, however from an outside POV the US education system looks totally broken (homeschooling?! 7-figure-levels of debt upon graduation?! segregated schools?! vastly different quality of education depending on if the public school district has money or not?!). Germany isn't that much better, and a load of other countries also have massive problems in education. When I look at what happened to people in the "poor-ish" hood I grew up, all I can say is that I was fucking lucky. A tiny bit less luck and I'd probably doing drugs now instead of working in IT.
> even if it means move their ass more, but at least they'll have real power, not just a ballot.
That's yet another can of worms. Back when I was young and went to school, we had MASSIVE school strikes to protest an "education reform" (aka clueless politicians listening to elitist "concerned parents"). Fascist marches/demonstrations were met with massive opposition of all kinds - from peaceful demonstrations to open riots in the streets. Most of the opposition were young(ish) people. Today, I'm happy when I'm out on the streets if there are 50 people on the road to oppose fascists. The youth has gone lethargic, and the "middle-aged" mostly spend their time and energy in internal debates instead of progressing society.
1) understood, I'm just realizing that there's a need for balance outside people's will too, not too much, but still. As you said, if possible it has to be crafted in order to avoid too much power into the already existing state, yet stability nonetheless.
2) the education paragraph was mostly daydreaming, I know how crazy it is, but people rarely talk about it as a premium need. So I mentioned it.
3) I have nothing to say here. Maybe the tides will have to be since the people aren't ready to divert them.
They are not an EU member in the strict sense, but they participate in a lot of EU treaties (e.g. Schengen) in order to have access to European markets and labor force - the problem is that these treaties are interlocked, i.e. you can't only pick the parts you want, it's all of the rules or nothing at all.
This New Yorker cartoon seems to sum up your position. [1] I think it is pretty clear that the policies in the document are a more important to most of us than the clarity of their presentation.
Well I'm glad "clear and concise to your eye" is the rubric by which we're grading policy. Or maybe this isn't about the actual policy, you just want complex reality to be boiled down in a way that's easily digestible?
My parents in NC are in that exact situation. My dad is on disability and Medicaid, and insurance for my stepmom would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% of their income. She doesn't qualify for any assistance. Apparently, 377,000 other North Carolinians don't either. And there are 19 other states in a similar position.
There are plenty of digestible summaries of the ACA online[0]. I think it has some things that are very beneficial to the American population, like (trying) to raise Medicaid and offering subsidies for those just above the Medicaid cut-off. Also barring insurers from providing coverage for those with pre-existing conditions[1] and barring lifetime limits.
Not saying the ACA is flawless, but I'm not confident that Trump and the GOP are going to improve the situation in the long-term. ("cutting the red tape at the FDA" might help a bit, though) It's still not clear exactly what actions they will take.
A typical quote, and hardly the most disturbing thing he's said on the campaign trail:
""Torture works. OK, folks? You know, I have these guys -- "Torture doesn't work!" -- believe me, it works. And waterboarding is your minor form. Some people say it's not actually torture. Let's assume it is. But they asked me the question, What do you think of waterboarding? Absolutely fine. But we should go much stronger than waterboarding. That's the way I feel. They're chopping off heads. Believe me, we should go much stronger, because our country's in trouble. We're in danger. We have people that want to do really bad things! Remeber the power of weaponry. This isn't 100 years ago where we fight hand to hand combat. This is weapons that are so destructive -- so destructive -- that the world could end. We have to be very strong, we have to be very vigilant, we have to be very tough. Waterboarding is fine, but it's not nearly tough enough, OK?"
"...we are playing by rules, but they have no rules. It's very hard to win when that's the case," Trump said, adding that the United States' ban on waterboarding is a sign of weakness.
"I think we've become very weak and ineffective. I think that's why we're not beating ISIS. It's that mentality," Trump said, adding that ISIS "must think we are a little bit on the weak side."
He has backpedaled on the issue since then, but the fact that he said this stuff in the first place is disturbing enough.
I agree that a disturbing percentage of mainstream USA in on board with it, I don't think it's 100% of them though.
Democrats have generally been opposed to torture. That's half the country right there. For the other half of the country, a huge part of the Republican base are Christian voters, who ought to be at the tip of the spear of the fight against torture, but in practice seem to neither explicitly condone nor condemn it. But I'll be charitable and assume that the evangelical segment of the party is steadfast against torture, meaning that at least 2/3s of Republican voters are against torture. That leaves no more than 1/6th of the US population on board with torture. That's still pretty messed up, but I'm trying to be optimistic. :(
I don't understand the outrage specifically over torture. Yes, it's terrible, but why is there more outrage over waterboarding than over drone strikes? This makes no sense to me. Would you rather be waterboarded or drone striked?
I and many other people would rather be dead than tortured. Torturing doesn't actually accomplish anything either. Anyone will say what you want to hear to get the pain to stop. Torture is more about some sick revenge.
The fact that they "will say what you want to hear" places limits on what you can gain from torture, but the limits don't make it impossible to accomplish anything.
The most obvious case is getting a password. (or lock combo or crypto key, or anything else that you can verify) You torture until you get a password that works. Obviously, there should be good reason to believe that the person knows the password.
Another case is where you know many things but not everything. You ask about all that you want to know, including things you already know. The things you already know are the honesty check. Answers to the unknowns are assumed to be dishonest until you start getting correct answers for all the things you already know.
God, it's 2016 and we're discussing whether we should dispense fates worse than death in brazen and barbaric acts of cruelty, to other human beings. What has happened to my country?
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.
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)
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.
I'm not sure how it's any worse than current term limits in some states or the proposed term limits here? And I'm not saying they can't be elected, just not for the same position in perpetuity. If they were popular and want to run again for that position when next possible, so be it.
> To which similar documents are you comparing it?
They are comparing it to Newt Gingrich's 1994 "Contract with America" [1]. It brought Republicans control of both the House and Senate, partly as a reaction to Clinton's 1993 healthcare plan [2].
That's exactly the point. No one has ever offered such a document, so say what you want about Trump, he's taking a step towards transparency and accountability.
The contract with America is notable for being highly, highly unusual to broadcast your actual plans. Nobody did this before or after the contract with america until now.
HAHAHA come on dude, this is just a "first 100 days in office" plan, it's used by presidential candidates all the time. You can't be serious.
Transparency? Accountability? Are you kidding me? This is the guy that brags about molesting women and won't even release his tax returns. Did you see who is going to be in his cabinet? Some of the slimiest and shameless career politicians of all time. Christie? Gingrich? When have these people been accountable ever?
I have a feeling you were not alive for the "Contract with America".
On a side note this is one of the most naive things I have ever seen. I was a bit agnostic before, but wow this is literally handing Russia and China the keys to the global economy while thinking he is doing the opposite. Yikes, I really did not realize he was this under qualified.
Hmm totally not being a Trump supporter how does this empower China exactly? Russia's economy is the size of NYC so that is even stranger point especially given Trumps position on " 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"
The TPP (and other trade agreements) is largely about establishing key US companies into foreign markets. The US can, unsurprisingly, command the upper-hand in most negotiations due to our massive economic influence. These laws include protections for IP rights, financial regulation, and food/drug safety standards that allow US companies to operate and establish dominance in foreign markets.
If the US refuses to build trade relations, or becomes known for breaking agreements, then that gives China the opportunity to come in and instead establish their entertainment, technology, banking, and consumer goods companies. This would be clearly at the expense of the US and would gradually erode our economic influence around the world.
People around the world drink Coke, eat McDonalds, search on Google, get loans from Wells Fargo, buy stuff on their Visas, etc, largely due to these agreements. This money funnels back to the US to pay salaries, taxes and dividends.
So, short-term, US sheep farmers benefit from not having to compete on fair terms with New Zealand wool. But long-term, all other Americans lose as the income streams from established American companies are transferred to their non-US counterparts.
In particular case of China given the trade imbalance and the currency peg doesn't really look like US has a net gain from current setup. US position in most categories in China is very modest.
Because China wants a piece of this amazing pie the US has cooked up. The US gave up the hard-to-automate, labor intensive industries while keeping a lot of the high-margin, highly-automated industries. So while Chinese companies compete for razor thin margins on smart phone components, American companies sell flavored sugar water all over the world for 500% markup (and gobble up any competition).
That's why the TPP is so important, it specifically excludes China because the goal is to further entrench US companies in SE Asia/Oceania. If the US backs out, then that gives China the opportunity to come in and sell the low-cost smart phones AND overpriced sugar water.
We are competing with China for trade partners and it seems backwards to me to forfeit.
US companies may sell the overpriced sugar water, but are the proceeds really flowing back to the US? Coca-Cola has done the whole tax haven and transfer pricing game for many years now.
Yet somehow they have built up more infrastructure in a year then we did in decades while running a huge trade surplus.
We get back disposable crap that does not create any lasting assets.
The Beijing subway system is already better than NY's: more lines, better quality, clean, safe...
That's just one example but I was impressed when I saw it. And they have been adding 1 new LINE per year in Beijing, wheras we don't even add 1 new station per year in most US cities.
Not exactly related, but being in Tokyo, I now see that Toronto's subway system is a joke. I think it hasn't really been updated since I was born. There's like, three lines in total.
Having dominant military is a key component is having USD as world's dominant currency which in turn drives about 30-40% of our GDP, so even aside from security aspect it's a very good investment.
> This money funnels back to the US to pay salaries, taxes and dividends.
Or rather to Bermuda, to fill the 0.5% tax-free accounts. So the sheep farmers are screwed and everyone else is screwed too. This is why people reject free trade (or think they do that by voting someone like Trump, which is another topic).
Maybe in some part, but there are also people at Visa who have to run the servers, create business agreements, manage people, etc whose jobs are at risk in a shrinking company.
It's good to hear that Germans are so happy. They would have been even happier to learn that TPP is a proposed trade deal between twelve Pacific Rim countries. It never included Germany.
> Hmm totally not being a Trump supporter how does this empower China exactly?
China's actively seeking trade deals all over the world. The US taking a strongly antitrade position could improve their relative position. The devil is really in the details, though.
Actively is putting it lightly. They are aggressively seeking trade deals and investment opportunities. Especially since they use those to further their foreign policy aims.
The geopolitical implications of Trump's isolationist position is going to be significant.
Do you have an example where China implemented a trade agreements that resulted in significant trade balance surplus for the trading partner? (aside from energy)
New Zealand has a trade surplus with China. NZ was in the TPPA, but already have a FTA with China. They were trying for one with the US, but the US preferred the TPPA. [1][2]
Since the China FTA came into effect, China has replaced the US as NZ's number 1 trading partner. The US is 4th on that list.[3]
OK I stand corrected Energy and Food but New Zealand is definitely more an exception then a norm. We are running close to 400b trade deficit with China.
China has been doing some pretty complex deals with countries all across Africa - financing and building hydroelectric dams and other massive infrastructure buildouts. These are long-term deals that often include concessions for oil or other natural resources, so it's difficult to pin them down to a clear surplus/deficit.
Generally in such deals Chinese companies are the contractors doing the work and suppliers of goods, so again outside of energy I don't think China implemented any agreements that provided surplus for the trading partner.
The TPP had very specific political goals - it created a common market for the US, a couple of Latin American countries, and most of the major East Asian and South Pacific economies... but NOT China. The idea being to both bind American allies in Asia more closely to it, and to ensure that if/when China wanted expanded trade with TPP members it would have to deal with rules that had originally been set by the US and its allies.
I'm fine with words gaining additional definitions due to how they are popular used, but when a word is defined as one thing, and the exact opposite of that same thing, and both definitions can be equally valid within the context of the same sentence, then that's literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
I will not claim it is intelligent. But, I also do not believe in language is made of intelligent design. Things evolve. Sometimes in clever ways. Sometimes in odd ways.
That said, most contronyms give absolutely no cognitive dissonance. That "to dust" something can mean to remove or to add something has rarely caused confusion. Only place I have ever seen it was in some old children's books, to be honest. Which is half the reason they are fun. Teaching kids contradictions is what keeps some of it interesting.
