Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

First 100 days v. 2.0


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> First 100 days v. 2.0 Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
First 100 days v. 2.0 - 11/22/2016 5:19:47 PM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline 		So Trump has released a video outlining his plans for executive actions in his first 100 days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xX_KaStFT8&feature=share

Here's my reaction to them.

1. Withdraw from the TPP
I am all for this

2. Cancel "job killing" restrictions on coal and oil production
I guess it depends on what those restrictions are, but on the whole I don't think I like this one

3. Formulate a rule that two old regulations must be eliminated for every new regulation put in place.
Dumb idea

4. Direct Joint Chiefs to develop a comprehensive defence strategy, including cyber defence.
I sort of figured he'd have to do this one, seeing as he had no real plan going into this, though I am pleased with the emphasis on cyber security.

5. Investigate abuses of visa programs
Well duh, yeah they should be looked into, the visa programs are often used to import and exploit the fuck out of lower paid workers from overseas, so I am for investigating any abuses of those programs

6. 5 year ban on executive officials becoming lobbyists & lifetime ban on executive officials lobbying for foreign countries.
I am down with that one, it's a good first step.

So all in all, I am in favour of his plans (assuming this is the final version of them).

So what is everybody else's take on his plans?



_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: First 100 days v. 2.0 - 11/22/2016 5:32:13 PM   
ifmaz


Posts: 844
Joined: 7/22/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
...
3. Formulate a rule that two old regulations must be eliminated for every new regulation put in place.
Dumb idea
...


Why is this a 'dumb idea'?

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: First 100 days v. 2.0 - 11/22/2016 5:45:23 PM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline 		Because it is, it assumes there is two bad regulations to be removed for every new one. There shouldn't be any set correlation or quota. If they think a regulation is bad then remove it, otherwise leave it in place, but it is dumb to say you can't add a new one unless you remove any set number of old ones.

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to ifmaz)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: First 100 days v. 2.0 - 11/22/2016 5:48:55 PM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline 		Looks like there is already a thread on this topic here
http://www.collarchat.com/m_4973340/mpage_2/tm.htm#4973554

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: First 100 days v. 2.0 - 11/22/2016 5:49:44 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: ifmaz


ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
...
3. Formulate a rule that two old regulations must be eliminated for every new regulation put in place.
Dumb idea
...
Why is this a 'dumb idea'?


Which "dumb" regulations do you want to see removed?

(in reply to ifmaz)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: First 100 days v. 2.0 - 11/22/2016 6:01:36 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline 		Like I've written, the lobbying regs. won't fly. The courts have said that lobbying is protected by the right to assembly. Except of course those actually on wall street and say actual K. St. But what takes place inside is just A OK !!

2000 were thrown in jail in DC for one such 'real' assembly, the courts threw out every case and found DC liable for proscribing the constitutional rights of those thrown in jail. DC paid a small settlement but...mission accomplished.

The very idea that 2 regs. most go for every new reg. with no provisos, simply means...no more regs.. They are ALL bad.

Authorities are and have been all over cyber security, especially the DoD and Visa abuses...especially ICE. Nothing new there. Curiously though, haven't read of any big busts of employers...for many years. You bust the poor, intimidated whore...not the pimps.

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: First 100 days v. 2.0 - 11/22/2016 6:03:27 PM   
MasterG2kTR


Posts: 6677
Joined: 8/7/2004
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

Because it is, it assumes there is two bad regulations to be removed for every new one. There shouldn't be any set correlation or quota. If they think a regulation is bad then remove it, otherwise leave it in place, but it is dumb to say you can't add a new one unless you remove any set number of old ones.


quite right.....however.....what is more likely to happen is that they will remove two old laws that are "restrictive" to their "constituents".....or in simple terms they will get rid of laws that their lobbyists and pacs don't like

there is nothing that says the old laws have to be obsolete versions of the new one.....or even just obsolete laws

_____________________________

Did you know.....
Two wrongs don't make a right,
but three rights make a left
....think about it

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: First 100 days v. 2.0 - 11/22/2016 6:04:06 PM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline
quote:

Like I've written, the lobbying regs. won't fly.

What if they are framed as part of an employment contract?

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: First 100 days v. 2.0 - 11/22/2016 6:57:37 PM   
sloguy02246


Posts: 534
Joined: 11/5/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Like I've written, the lobbying regs. won't fly.

What if they are framed as part of an employment contract?


I believe there is existing law that states a private contract cannot include a term or condition that is illegal or unconstitutional.
For instance, if you were selling your home and did not want it sold to people of color, that restriction, if written into our sales contract, would not only be unenforceable, its very presence would also open the both of us to legal action by people of color who are rejected when they try to purchase the property.

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: First 100 days v. 2.0 - 11/22/2016 7:09:28 PM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline 		But non-disclosure clauses violate one's right to free speech, as do secrecy regulations, so clearly employment regulations can curtail some constitutional rights some of the time.

quote:

For instance, if you were selling your home and did not want it sold to people of color

Yeah, I don't think that is a Constitutional thing, I think it is an anti-discrimination law thing.

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to sloguy02246)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: First 100 days v. 2.0 - 11/22/2016 8:56:02 PM   
heavyblinker


Posts: 3623
Status: offline 		Believe it or not, I'm actually starting to think that Trump isn't the horrible fuck he promised everyone he would be if he won.

He obviously pushed himself as a fascist throughout his campaign, but the thing is, behind all of the bullshit promises, Hitler actually had strong opinions and a clear vision for Germany... Trump was a clueless idiot who just said whatever got the strongest reaction from people because he wanted to prove he could do it. I wasn't thinking that the system would allow him to do most of what he claimed he wanted to do (I was mostly upset because people actually believed his stupidity), but I was still wondering if he might be able to push enough of it through to do some damage.

But now that he's won and has no idea how to handle the shit being thrown at him, it's like a reset button has been hit. It's possible that he's forcing himself to actually figure out how everything works and even who he is politically. The thing about a campaign built on ridiculous lies is that ANYTHING could be behind those lies.

Of course, it would be political suicide, but how sweet it would be if this clueless blowhard grows up to be a no-longer-closeted Sanders Democrat. I don't know if it's likely, but it seems possible... especially if he's earnestly trying to bring people together. I mean, it's pretty fucking obvious that his legions only really care about their team winning. Trump could actually sell them on a lot of traditionally left-wing policies... which is possible since apparently he was a Democrat before 2010. He has already got the infrastructure thing... I never would have believed the right could support such a thing, and yet here we are.

Anyways, I'm probably daydreaming here, but I'm feeling a little encouraged by his latest comments.

I don't know if he's just trying to suck up to the left in order to stop being so divisive, but it seems that he has softened on the Paris Climate Treaty... and honestly, if he becomes the first GOP candidate in history to NOT intentionally continue to fuck the entire planet for profit and lie about it, I will be unable to completely hate him.

The economically disastrous shit can be reversed after his supporters realize he's a fraud and he gets kicked out in 4 years (and a recession might actually benefit the environment anyways)... but if Paris falls apart it would be horrific. I can't imagine his plan to deregulate fossil fuels with a vengeance could go through if the US was bound by the Paris Treaty. It doesn't exactly lock everyone in or impose legal restrictions, and he could always render it worthless by simply defying it, but if he stays in, follows it, and tells everyone it's a good thing, then that's a pretty huge step... the whole denialist movement could crumble. Seriously, if he's looking for concessions to make to get the left on his side, THAT would be the one.

In fact, I would weep tears of joy and declare him a national if not global hero.

The worst thing in the world would be if he just figured out what to say to make everyone happy, and then did horrible GOP shit anyways when nobody was looking.

< Message edited by heavyblinker -- 11/22/2016 9:05:46 PM >

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 11
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> First 100 days v. 2.0 Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.070