Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]

Some of this sounds great - term limits on congress, a measure to reduce the revolving door effect of government officials going into lobbying.<p>Some of it sounds ridiculous - for every new federal regulation, 2 existing regulations must be eliminated. How is that considered feasible by any rational person? It might sound great if you don&#x27;t think too hard about it.<p>The scariest things for me are the backing out of climate change accords and the opening up of additional shale&#x2F;gas&#x2F;etc resources. We really don&#x27;t need to be heading in that direction, energy-wise.

I&#x27;ll bet he doesn&#x27;t know that the pubic sector shrank more under Obama than the previous presidents:<p>&quot;The public sector grew during Mr. Carter&#x27;s term (up 1,304,000), during Mr. Reagan&#x27;s terms (up 1,414,000), during Mr. G.H.W. Bush&#x27;s term (up 1,127,000), during Mr. Clinton&#x27;s terms (up 1,934,000), and during Mr. G.W. Bush&#x27;s terms (up 1,744,000 jobs).<p>However the public sector has declined significantly since Mr. Obama took office (down 668,000 jobs). These job losses have mostly been at the state and local level, but more recently at the Federal level. This has been a significant drag on overall employment.&quot; [1]<p>I&#x27;ll be surprised if he gets half these things done in the next 4 yrs, though most are so vague it&#x27;s not clear what &#x27;done&#x27; would mean.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.calculatedriskblog.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;10&#x2F;public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.calculatedriskblog.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;10&#x2F;public-and-private...</a>

So he&#x27;s going to lower taxes on the wealthy, drop taxes on businesses, increase spending on military, destroy our national parks to extract oil, and lay off federal employees.<p>This is going to help the middle class and the uneducated who are struggling through... magic. None of the lobbying stuff will ever see the light of day. The term limits won&#x27;t happen. He&#x27;s going to repeal the &quot;illegal&quot; Obama executive orders but leave the Bush ones in place because... they&#x27;re illegal but he likes them?<p>The immigration thing will happen and result in massive backlash if I had to guess. None of the reforms will ever happen because he doesn&#x27;t have the power to enact any of it, and the Republicans are NEVER going to agree to that when they&#x27;re currently in power. His justice choice will never in a million years overturn Citizens United which is literally the only affect he could have on political corruption.

&gt; FIFTH, 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<p>This is what I have the <i>biggest</i> problem with. The ONLY WAY we are going to continue making progress towards widespread clean renewable energy is if it is financially beneficial for corporations to continue investing in R&amp;D. Sure, there are some outliers that will stick with it on principal, but the majority will go where the money is. Cheaper fossil fuels == less investment in renewable energy. Period. This is bad timing given the critical point we are at (so far as we know) regarding climate change.<p>This is pure short-sightedness motivated by the desire to deliver on his promise of creating jobs.

I am surprised nobody mentioned<p>&gt; cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities<p>&gt;Some of the 31 American cities are Los Angeles (the first since 1979); Washington, D.C.; New York City (see also Illegal immigration in New York City); Jersey City; Berkeley, California; Coachella, California; Philadelphia; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Jose; Oakland; Salt Lake City; Dallas; Houston; Detroit; Chicago; Salinas, California; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven; Somerville; Cambridge; and Portland, Maine.

Whatever you think about Trump or the policies in that document, it&#x27;s clearer and more concise than anything I&#x27;ve seen from an elected official.

A lot of what&#x27;s in there seems pretty reasonable, but:<p>1) The whole border wall thing is just ridiculous. I thought he had given up on that. Why would Mexico have to pay for that? If the US wants to build a wall, fine, build it and pay for it. It doesn&#x27;t make sense to demand that Mexico pay for it. It&#x27;s like building a wall on your property and demanding your neighbors pay for it.<p>2) The FDA thing is scary. Regulations and processes are there for a reason. I&#x27;ll be very wary if this goes through and I ever have to take any medication that&#x27;s not established in the market.

There&#x27;s a lot of really scary stuff in there:<p>- Cancel payments to U.N. climate change projects<p>- Remove two existing regulations for every new regulation<p>- Drastic tax cuts<p>- Massive immigration changes

Just so everyone is aware: selling insurance across state lines is code for &quot;gut all insurance regulations&quot;. Why did most credit card banks relocate their paper headquarters to SD? Because SD had no usury laws and federal law said laws of your headquarters was all that mattered. It gutted all state regulation of credit cards in one fell swoop.<p>This is the same approach DJT and the Republicans want to take for health care. Think about that race to the bottom for a minute. Denied and dropped for making a single claim? Good luck, totally legal in [insert small state here].<p>Without the individual mandate insurance marketplaces don&#x27;t work so I assume repealing Obamacare will immediately lead to millions of people being thrown off health insurance.<p>Truly a great victory for America.

&quot;All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered “extreme vetting.” &quot;<p>I visit the US every year to see friends. Some of whom are Arab-American. I&#x27;m seriously worried that I&#x27;m going to find myself on the receiving end of &#x27;extreme vetting&#x27;.

&gt; FIRST, propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress.<p>I&#x27;ve debated this approach with friends in the past. From a game-theory perspective, does this promote or hinder political corruption?<p>I&#x27;m inclined to believe that term limits would actually encourage corruption.<p>1) If senators have to find a job after 8 years, surely that encourages the revolving door between industry and government, as they need to find another job .<p>2) If excellent and popular politicians have to be replaced before they fall from popularity, and it still costs a lot of money to get elected, then candidates will become more beholden to special interests (as they can&#x27;t campaign on their track record or political capital). This would also dilute the overall quality of legislators.<p>3) If the average candidate has little or no political record, then how can we root out those who are beholden to special interests? At least currently we can look at who they have taken money from over the years in the public records that are available. If every candidate is a blank slate, who hasn&#x27;t been subjected to oversight, it will be much easier for a candidate to be secretly bought without the public having a chance to spot it.<p>The real problem is not that there exists career politicians, it&#x27;s that they experience extreme conflicts of interest due to being permitted to engage in insider trading [1], that they are not restricted from taking jobs in the industries they regulated while in government [2], and that there is a massive flow of money into politician&#x27;s campaigns from special interests [3].<p>A more credible solution to these problems is advanced by Represent.us: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;anticorruptionact.org&#x2F;whats-in-the-act&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;anticorruptionact.org&#x2F;whats-in-the-act&#x2F;</a><p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;theintercept.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;05&#x2F;07&#x2F;congress-argues-cant-investigated-insider-trading&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;theintercept.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;05&#x2F;07&#x2F;congress-argues-cant-inv...</a> [2]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.opensecrets.org&#x2F;revolving&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.opensecrets.org&#x2F;revolving&#x2F;</a> [3]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Citizens_United_v._FEC" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Citizens_United_v._FEC</a>

I&#x27;m confused about this regulation thing. Many people hate regulations because they think of it as limiting for businesses. But I think, you couldn&#x27;t work as a business if there were no regulations.<p>An example, Nevada voted to open its electricity market this week. Everybody should be able to choose the provider they want.<p>But to do this, there need to be regulations in place. Independent companies need to know how they can use the grid, the company who owns the grid needs to know what it can charge for the usage of the grid.<p>If you let such a market without any regulation, there won&#x27;t be a market, because the grid owner won&#x27;t let anyone use its grid.<p>So removing regulations is not always a good thing. Most of the time regulations were put there for a reason.

His stand on climate change scares me.<p>What can the public do to prevent him from opening energy reserves and backing out of climate change agreements?<p>Are there efforts going on to prevent this?<p>Building a wall along the Mexican border...I don&#x27;t see the thinking behind the decision.

How did I not see this before the election (even if it came out 102316 as evidenced in the file name)? Why did NYT&#x2F;Guardian&#x2F;all of the news sites that I regularly visit not report this?<p>This is a clear policy proposal, contrary to everything I had read that said he had no clear plan.

For corporations, there&#x27;s an odd mix of sticks and carrots. For example these two promises:<p>&quot;... trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10% rate.&quot;<p>&quot;Establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers ...&quot;<p>So a company can more easily bring back offshore billions to the US, but at the same time, new tariffs are put in place that make it harder to lay off people, thus effectively discouraging the company from spending that money on creating jobs in the country?<p>Seems like the net effect of these seemingly bold new rules could be practically zero.<p>It&#x27;s odd that Trump is a businessman, yet his list of solutions includes all kinds of tariffs and trade restrictions to rein in business. There&#x27;s a reason Western countries don&#x27;t use tariffs much anymore: they&#x27;re counterproductive if you want to stimulate growth. But I guess that old economics lesson is about to be put to another test.

Leave nafta? There doesn&#x27;t seem to be a very thorough analysis on the effect of this.... You can&#x27;t just make changes to economic policy and hope for the best - there are far and wide impacts to making changes like this.

I hate Trump, but some of this isn&#x27;t actually that bad sounding. I have some doubts though if such a divisive and hated guy can manage to get stuff through though. He has not made himself into a person people want to cooperate with.<p>For some things though, he makes the problem sound way simpler than it is. E.g. removing existing regulations when introducing an new one and reducing government employees.<p>We got a right wing government in Norway thinking much along these lines promising removal of red tape, fewer public sector employees etc.<p>They failed. Reality is just a lot more complicated. Instead they have resorted to stupid tricks to make it look as if they are reducing public sector employees. They more some employees to other organizations which are not technically part of government. They they can make the statistics look pretty. But they are still paying for the services of these people.<p>The problem with e.g. reducing public sector employees is that every new government has big ambitions they want to happen YESTERDAY. That can only happen by public sector employees making it happen. The more ambitious your changes, the more new bureaucrats you frequently need to hire to get this done.<p>New ambitions typically also means a lot more rules and regulations have to be added.<p>I know this problem well from Software development. We want to reduce the number of useless lines of code. Except from users and managers there is a tremendous pressure and incentive for new functionality to be added. That means more lines of code not less.<p>Laws and regulations will be the same. People want the new stuff. They don&#x27;t want to hear that you spent all this time removing stuff which doesn&#x27;t really give anybody anything new, except a nice refactored law book.<p>Likely you are going to need to hire lots of people to actually start cutting down on regulation. Identifying what can be removed and figuring out how the rephrase things requires actual work, which somebody has to do. And if they are doing that they are not implementing the new policies of the administration.

It is fascinating to read all these comments (594 as I write this) analyzing this is a policy document. This is a marketing document. What will the actual policies be? Who knows. Perhaps some of them will be somewhat like some of the words in this document. Perhaps others will not. We are headed very far into uncharted territory, and all these pundits writing so many words confident about exactly what will happen, seems obviously silly given what has happened recently.

&gt; FOURTH, a five-year ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service.<p>&gt; FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.<p>&gt; SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.<p>Can&#x27;t see a reason to complain about any of these (though I&#x27;ve posted objections in other threads about other measures, mainly here [1]). Can anyone spot issues on these measures?<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=12916509" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=12916509</a>

<i>Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country of Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a two-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a five-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions</i><p>How Mexico will be forced to pay for a wall built by the US will make for a good TV show.<p>Private prisons are about to make a killing with the 2- and 5-year mandatory prison terms.

Today, Trump appointed Myron Ebell (a massive climate change denier) to head up the EPA.<p>We&#x27;re so utterly and completely fucked.

Does anyone have an idea about the expected global response to the Secretary of the Treasury labeling China a currency manipulator?

This is so Berlusconi <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Contract_with_the_Italians" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Contract_with_the_Italians</a>

This can&#x27;t be good for Tesla and a lot of other green companies. My hope is that despite this &quot;contract&quot; he won&#x27;t do much... I believe the price of the energy is not longer only about the production and distribution but also its long term effects(i.e health, sustainability, climate change).

This is actually pretty good and what I was expecting of him once he got to stop the smear campaigns that are U.S. elections. Now, let me cross-reference a few that might be good against what he&#x27;s said or done in the past where I think he might try to make them happen with a possibility they will.<p>1. Renegotiate NAFTA and TPP. I opposed both as they were mainly just for the richest to get richer moving jobs &amp; playing games behind peoples&#x27; backs. He might clean them up a bit or make them favor U.S. more.<p>2. Foreign trading abuses. He griped about that on the Oprah show especially pointing out how the Japanese make it nearly impossible for him to do business in their country. He said many of the countries supposedly have trade agreements to make it easy but they trip us up with little obstacles. He&#x27;ll probably stand by that.<p>3. Shift from UN to American infrastructure. I have doubts climate change strategies will work at all given how they&#x27;re partial with lots of noncompliance. Meanwhile, those infrastructure aren&#x27;t getting much support. Lesser of two evils.<p>4. Cancel unconstitutional EO&#x27;s of Obama. I&#x27;m for doing that for all Presidents. He should start at Bush by vetoing Patriot Act, mass surveillance, etc. We know he said Obama for a reason, though. (sighs)<p>5. My family and many local businesses were affected heavily by illegal immigrants where lots of people lost jobs. We&#x27;ve also been hit with the fine letter of the law repeatedly. I&#x27;m for tight immigration policies &amp; fair enforcement of law. Opposite of this coin is he should start arresting or fining any business owners that knowingly hired illegal immigrants just to be fair. There are two sides to that problem.<p>6. Tax Simplification. Often good.<p>7. Discourage offshoring. Should&#x27;ve been doing that along with maintaining a strong industrial base domestically. A huge chunk of our economy is financial engineering. Need more <i>real</i> stuff.<p>8. Child and elderly care. Sounds good.<p>9. Help veterans part of the National Security Act. They&#x27;ve been getting dogged by the system pretty bad that I&#x27;ve seen.

Does anyone know if this -<p><i>Enacts new ethics reforms to drain the swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics.</i><p>...means overturning Citizens United? Because if it doesn&#x27;t, then this is just propaganda.

WTF, America? How could anyone trust an alleged narcissist, extremist, sexist, racist, self-righteous and nationalist who paid nothing in income tax for the last 20 years to do what he says?

Who put this list together and how? a night of heavy &quot;thinking&quot;? Who did they consult on how realistic and achievable these goals are? Does budget allow for any of this?<p>Is this all made up BS plan that could never be achieved?

This reads like Buzz Windrip&#x27;s list from <i>It Can&#x27;t Happen Here</i>.<p>It can happen here.

<i>propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress.</i><p>Not a bad idea.<p><i>begin removing the more than two million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back.</i><p>Only the <i>criminal</i> ones. OK

&quot;THIRD, cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities.&quot;<p>Is this explained anywhere?

I can’t believe that he is really going to go through with:<p><i>THIRD, I will direct the Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator.</i><p>Has nobody told him what this is going to do to the economy? The rest of his proposals he will have to get past congress and the courts, but this is one he can do all on his own.

There&#x27;s nothing to discuss here. A reaction along the lines of &quot;Well, that doesn&#x27;t sound so bad, but maybe he ought to think about...&quot; means you&#x27;re now playing by his rules. This is just Reagan++.

He&#x27;s calling executive actions unconstitutional. Let&#x27;s hope he sticks to that.

If the Secretary of the Treasury designates China as a currency manipulator, your new iPhone will wind up costing you $2000. What madness.

So, this is NOT new, it&#x27;s been around for a while (see the footer of the document). Important to recognize that this may not be his actual first 100 day plan now he has actually won.<p>The bigger problem is that since the Democrats and media took the &quot;Literally Hitler&quot; approach, no policies got discussed even though they were available in plain sight. Now whether you like them or not, he&#x27;s won, and people had no opportunity to understand the policy differences between the candidates.

Wow did he just take a page directly from Berlusconi&#x27;s book? Berlusconi did the exact same 100 days contract about ten years ago!

this is laid out like an actual memorandum of understanding as used in business.<p>many contracts start out this way then turn into actual contracts full of legalese. in government context that would be legislation.<p>this isn&#x27;t a bad start at all if a reasonable amount of it actually happens.

Oh almost forgot: get ready for the end to net neutrality.<p>Comcast&#x2F;ATT&#x2F;Verizon: nice startup you got there... would be a shame if anything happened to your traffic.

SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.<p>Pardon my naivety but who does this target?

I&#x27;m worried about 18F&#x2F;USDS&#x2F;etc. because of the freeze on federal hiring. Partly I have friends there, but mostly, those organizations need to exist if government is going to be effective. They&#x27;re getting things done, and they&#x27;re also taking business away from government contractors who don&#x27;t get things done (i.e., saving significant taxpayer money).

&quot;... The business rate will be lowered from 35% to 15%, and the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10% rate.&quot;<p>15% seems like a lofty goal, even 25% would be drastic. Unless a corporation can be confident that there will be significant growth in the economy, they are likely to hoard the savings than reinvest them.

<i>&quot;limit, freeze, eliminate, ban, withdraw, label, end, remove, suspend and cancel&quot;</i><p>Just some of the words that stuck out to me.

Seems pretty reasonable. I remain optimistic.

<p><pre><code> cancel every unconstitutional executive action,</code></pre> memorandum and order issued by President Obama.<p>I think we need some claification on what is &quot;constitutional&quot;

Lest anyone forgets, term limits will never happen. Mitch McConnell is 100% against it and, guess what, it has to get through him to happen.

Given that the Republicans have a majority in BOTH the House and the Senate, it&#x27;s likely a majority of these initiatives will go through!

Let&#x27;s pay Damien Gregory for the Real Lockdown phone gas you president speech and Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Lockdown and Trump towers contact him for your shit back needs to be Paid for everything 509-945-4338

Screw it. Let&#x27;s go all in with &quot;clean coal&quot;. Fund NASA with the additional tax revenue from all the new oil money going around. Let&#x27;s get off the planet before it matters.

&quot;Six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC&quot;<p>Ok, I&#x27;m on board with all of those... Then, besides a few other points, it just gets worse and worse the further into it you go.<p>If he accomplishes all 6, or even half, that&#x27;s great. I just hope he won&#x27;t have enough time to ruin everything else. At least now (especially after Dubya) we know we need outsiders vigilantly watching every move (and non-move) he makes.

&gt;FIRST , cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama.<p>Does this mean the LGBT rights to marry will be taken back?

Replace health insurance with health savings accounts?

So you can sign a copy of the contract that only you will have? I don&#x27;t think that&#x27;s the way contracts are made.

Did he upload this today?

&quot;Restoring National Security Act&quot; The Federalization of law enforcement has the potential for fascism. Also lowering the repatriation of corporate abroad profit makes it more tax efficient to move jobs overseas. A 10% repatriation below the 15% cap gains rate is a massive tax loophole.

I was born in Uzbekistan, having Russian citizenship and living in the Netherlands.<p>I wonder if they allow me to enter US.<p>I <i>hope</i> Trump won&#x27;t go <i>that far</i> (i.e. banning from entering US because I was born in Uzbekistan).

Are any TN visa holders worried about Trump wanting to withdraw from NAFTA?

The Guardian just published a line-by-line analysis of this document:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;us-news&#x2F;2016&#x2F;nov&#x2F;13&#x2F;trump-policy-pledges-gettysburg-speech" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;us-news&#x2F;2016&#x2F;nov&#x2F;13&#x2F;trump-policy...</a>

Apart from the content, why is it even called a &quot;contract&quot;? There&#x27;s no terms and obligations for the &quot;American voter&quot; in there.

Cached version, since the site seems unresponsive.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;webcache.googleusercontent.com&#x2F;search?q=cache%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fassets.donaldjtrump.com%2F_landings%2Fcontract%2FO-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf&amp;oq=cache%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fassets.donaldjtrump.com%2F_landings%2Fcontract%2FO-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;webcache.googleusercontent.com&#x2F;search?q=cache%3Ahttp...</a>

no carried interest talk, which is alright by me, that actually makes sense in giving an incentive for risk. would be interested to see if the 10% hit on monetary repatriation works, that could have some serious effects if that much multinational money gets sucked out of europe and abroad.

Question: What are the analytics that this website contains to track the potential support&#x2F;non support of viewers of the document?

if these are really his views then I would be happy if he can achieve 50% of this. I understand why big people fought against him now.

He&#x27;s handing America&#x27;s world dominance handedly to China. Start learning Chinese folks, America is done.

Thanks! I was looking for this today.

Federal prison is probably not as terrible as some of the conditions Mexicans flee from.

Two words: industrial policy. Without it any likelihood of creating substantially more jobs than the the current trend goes out the window. The problem? Industrial policy is hard and requires some attention span. You can&#x27;t just tweet it out.

This document is from before the election, it&#x27;s invalid now.

&quot;SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.&quot; -- sounds rather Russian, don&#x27;t they have a law now forcing Amnesty International and others to register as &quot;foreign agents&quot;?

I think it&#x27;s weird how very few people on HN seem to be worried about his promise to initiate pogroms against minorities in the first 100 days, like it doesn&#x27;t even warrant a mention for most of you

&gt; FIRST propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress.<p>If he does this alone, then he&#x27;s made a huge impact.<p>I&#x27;m really concerned he might be assassinated.

Great so insurers can go back to dropping&#x2F;denying people.<p>Why does Trump want US citizens to die because they cannot get health care?

In other words, it&#x27;s all other people &#x2F; country&#x27;s fault.

wow. alot of these would be amazing if he got them to go through. maybe the &quot;world is ending&quot; rehtoric of 2008 when pres. obama was elected is similar to the current talk?

hmm .. the thought I had when reading it was..<p>The Impossible Dream...<p>Why? Remember Trump ran as a Populist..but both political parties are somewhat Corporate Shrills...<p>Not saying it cannot happen..but probably not in his two terms..

Seems reasonable.

why would mexico pay for the wall? 9 out of 10 times when someone asks this question they are not aware of the fact that we had a $58 billion trade deficit with mexico in 2015. trumps proposal is to use this and all the other leverage we have over mexico to get them to pay for the wall. at first glance it seems that it would be very much in mexicos best financial interest to cooperate, actually. most liberals think he just says that mexico will build the wall and that he does not offer any kind of plan or explanation. this is because they never actually confirm their presumptions. im not saying that his plan is great or will even work. but it is a plan and although it is unconventional, it is also plausible.<p>the most concerning aspect of trumps policies is that regarding climate. but thankfully renewable energy is now well on its way. its not a fragile infant anymore -- it will survive trump if not explode into popularity under trump despite his stance on the environment.<p>the trump movement was a grass roots movement. People voted for him because he said that he will stop companies from outsourcing their work with simple tax implementations. they lifted him from obscurity and into the presidency. take a look at the other times he ran and you can see what his campaign would have been like without the grass roots element: nothing. trump would not be president if people in the mid-west had good employment and a sense of financial security.<p>and as for the sexual assault thing, i would rather have trump be elected than see bill clinton back in the white house because bill clinton is literally a rapist. i know it may come as a huge shock for liberals -- being a liberal it was a huge shock to me -- but its true. i know this is not the most reputable source but before you disagree with me i would like you to watch this video of a woman recounting the event.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=zHh73fkDUIs" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=zHh73fkDUIs</a><p>and another<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=Ug7diBO3XYY" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=Ug7diBO3XYY</a><p>i very much doubt that someone who could easily make a nice living in hollywood as one of the best actors in the world would instead decide to publicly accuse one of the most powerful men in the world of one of the worst crimes possible.<p>heres an article from npr (one of the most liberal new organizations on the planet) addressing the issue and offering absolutely no evidence to contradict it.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.npr.org&#x2F;2016&#x2F;10&#x2F;09&#x2F;497291071&#x2F;a-brief-history-of-juanita-broaddrick-the-woman-accusing-bill-clinton-of-rape" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.npr.org&#x2F;2016&#x2F;10&#x2F;09&#x2F;497291071&#x2F;a-brief-history-of-j...</a><p>if anyone can point to evidence that proves her wrong then please let me know. im impartial.

Why is this flagged ? The Outsourcing act itself has repercussions to tech industry. This is not political opinion, its a policy pamphlet. Its fine, you hate the man with all your guts out, but it would be a sign of maturity, to argue for or against them, sharing your insights, rather than flagging the message and flogging the messenger.

Why does this post show up as flagged, but there&#x27;s no vouch button which I normally see for flagged posts? I voted for Hillary, but this post shouldn&#x27;t be flagged.

Trump should append this contract with &quot;End Internet shills&quot; because it seems there are a lot of them on this thread. Good golly, I thought finally CTR would close up shop after last night.<p>For the first time in generations the USA finally has a president who isn&#x27;t a puppet. And this contract allows us to keep said President accountable from day one. Nerds rejoice! Fear not the knee-jerk comments from un&#x2F;mis-informed trendies and especially ignore the talking-point bots still hating on Trump via whatever is left in the Soros&#x2F;CF payroll account. After years of trying they ultimately failed and clearly cannot impact the will of the people at the end of the day. MAGA.