Donald Trump Announces His ‘Contract with the American Voter’

a reply to: FaunaOrFlora

I deserved that! Too many fine scotches?

A reminder that this is NOT the MUD PIT.

Which essentially means that personal attacks, mud slinging and all sorts of trollery are not allowed. Posts will be removed as deemed appropriate. You also run the risk of having your posting privileges suspended. Not a fun thing to experience.

Remember that posts removed as political trollery automatically count as TWO warnings.

Consider this more than fair warning.

As usual, do NOT reply to this post.

Have any of those against actually addressed each point in a specific way? Why are these things NOT good for our country?

a reply to: In4ormant

It has always been there. It has just not been reported. He first had to fight to get the nomination and now he is fighting both sides. They want him to look like a dirtbag not a person with a plan. If you cannot win on your own merit make your opponent look worse. Too bad the average American is done...

a reply to: matafuchs

It doesn't seem but any but the most 'die hards' much bother with too many policy / real-issue type conversing the past week'ish.

There's so many on that list. Surprising on this one.

I'm not exactly a fan of Trump but I have to admit most of these plans are pretty good and represent true Republican ideals. I love the idea of "a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated" haha. The "Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act" is also a very good plan imo, in combination with reducing regulations and reducing government spending, it has the potential to significantly improve the U.S. economy. However people in government haven't used logic like that in a long time, everything is about increasing taxes to cover increasing government spending, and shrinking of government power is almost viewed as weakening of the nation.

originally posted by: matafuchs
Have any of those against actually addressed each point in a specific way? Why are these things NOT good for our country?

Why address it point by point? There is plenty there that I simply say no to. Some of it has been addressed over and over like making Mexico pay for a wall.

IMO it is just a bunch of pandering lip service which even if he was elected there is no way he could deliver on.


It is stupid.

Section One
His 2nd issue would lower the amount of people working at the IRS reducing the chance that he would be audited and/or lowers the chance they find something due to less people able to investigate tax evasion. Reducing the EPA further to increase pollution ect. I do like the Lobbying rules but good luck getting congress to approve those.

Section Two
Most of his jobs section is terrible and would lead to less job and more pollution. His "Energy Policy" is ridiculous many of those energy reserves are not being tapped due to the cost of oil not regulation.

Section Three
Basically turning the clock back to the bush era and torture is back on the table. I would bet the denying Federal Funds to "Sanctuary Cities" would be illegal as it the federal governments job to enforce immigration. Obama, as Trump pointed out last debate, is deporting the criminal illegals first and doing a lot of it. But that would be gone when he got rid of the Obama Executive orders. EXTREME VETTING!!!!! I guess 2 years of investigation is too little for him.

Section Four.....
OUR POOR DEPLETED MILITARY ONLY OUTSPENDS EVERY OTHER NATION ON EARTH!
This section is full of crap. Every single point in this section has something in it that makes it compeltly terrible.

To top it all off he gave this horrible speech in Gettysburg. Included suing the women coming out aginst him and suing Clinton. This man has no tact at all.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Interesting how people EXPECT a new comer to have it all figured out in advance before even getting into the flow of things, getting a real taste of the doo, getting intelligence briefings and teams of advisors and all that. To hammer all that down in a couple years, in time for the pow wow. Nope, he's a loser.

I don't expect a new comer to have it all figured out but I do expert them to research/learn about the topic and/or hire the best people possible for the campaign. 2 things Trump has not done AT ALL. From the way he talks I am not sure he even knows that a Senator/Sec of State/First Lady isn't a dictator that can wave her had and make laws on a whim. Sure he could be saying those things to make a point but the framing of them is just steeped in ignorance.

a reply to: Pyle

Yeah, she just can break any law she wants.

She was so close this time. It's a shame she blew it.

If she would have just told the truth, there might have been a chance.

I agree with about 40% of this. 10% of it I don't understand and 50% of it I do not agree with.
It's late or I would give a brake down of each point and how I feel. I may come back tomorrow and give details on what I like, what I don't understand , and what I do not like. The best thing would be if someone would replay here with Hilary's 100 day plans.

He should have done this months ago...

But now that Trump finally pulled both feet from his mouth and actually said something of substance it impressed me.

Now, if he can accomplish even half of what he says then I won't be ashamed to have voted for him, and might even feel hopeful about the fate of our country.
Let's hope he gets in and doesn't get killed before the first 100 days at least. Because, let's be honest, what he is proposing is so anti-establishment and anti new world agenda (except the unaddressed banking issues... Maybe he is saving that..) that he will no doubt put a target on his head larger than what Kennedey had.

What I like:
I especially like the congress term limits, 5 year lobbyist ban, giving education back to families, no new federal regulations without eliminating 2 existing, no foreign influence on our elections, wiping out the unconstitutional executive orders of Obama, simplified tax brackets, largest tax breaks for the middle class (backbone of our country),....
Ok, I like most of it.

There are things I don't care so much about like the wall that Mexico would never reimburse (don't think we need a wall). He would have been smarted to focus on implementing an easier path for workers from our border countries to gain access to just work (benefit exempt), of allow service in the military as a gateway.
The wall was the only real turd on his list, but likely isn't the most difficult item he listed to achieve.

Ok. That is a quick summary of my thoughts...
Love to hear yours also.. Tell me why some of those I listed are bad, or good..
Convince me otherwise on the wall..

Not asking anyone in particular. Haha
Just anyone who cares to share.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

What does this have to do with what I commented on?

a reply to: xuenchen

Great post, S&F!

My friends and I, when we discuss politics, try to keep our discussions focused on what problems need solving and what possible solutions there are. The truth that neither side in the election debate is telling is that there is ALMOST ALWAYS more than one solution to a problem.

We're a diverse bunch, but the one thing we can all agree on is 'Simplify'.

It's time. The legislative and bureaucratic nightmare we have in this country is made by the elite, for the elite. Complexity stifles competition and tilts the playing field in favor of the special interests who shaped the rules.

He's trying to invoke Newt, the hardcore right goes crazy over the nostalgia of the "Contract with America", that phrasing is probably meant to energize the Republican base.

Anyways, the whole thing is a bullet point of what he's campaigning on. Unfortunately most of that stuff just isn't possible, or was left with such vague wording that doing nothing could be considered a victory. For example, repealing Obama's unconstitutional EO's. The only problem is, they're all consitutional so there's nothing to repeal. Another is his intention (the key word) to renegotiate NAFTA. He doesn't say he's going to, he's only saying it's currently on the agenda. If he's blocked from doing so, it doesn't change his intent.

Whoever phrased that contract from him was a real piece of work. It's all phrased such that he can not follow through on it, while sticking to the contractual terms. Kind of like how he doesn't pay people he's contracted to work on his properties.

Too bad he is so politically inept as to lay this out at a time when Nate Silver is running 93% for Clinton. He is doing anti-establishment types a disservice every single time he opens his mouth.