Support NeoGAF

[spock]

Okay, I'll use Trump's language since apparently that's okay.

Trump supporters are made up of racists and the worst of society. Some Trump supporters, I assume, are good people.

I am not generalizing any more than Trump did and I have those actual beliefs also.

Dont want to get to much further into it but since you are indeed one of the posters I had in mind... There was one claim you keep bringing up. On multiple posts you seem to ignore what Trump has actually said regarding Immigrants as it relates to them being criminals.

As has been posted before his actual quote is more along the lines of some Mexican immigrants are criminals (not all) and some of those criminal immigrants are being ignored or assisted in crossing the boarder by the Mexican government. This is not the same as saying all Mexican immigrants are criminals, hes taking about a group within the immigrant population, however you continually ignore that and reiterate his quote incorrectly.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Dont want to get to much further into it but since you are indeed one of the posters I had in mind... There was one claim you keep bringing up. On multiple posts you seem to ignore what Trump has actually said regarding Immigrants as it relates to them being criminals.

As has been posted before his actual quote is more along the lines of some Mexican immigrants are criminals (not all) and some of those criminal immigrants are being ignored or assisted in crossing the boarder by the Mexican government. This is not the same as saying all Mexican immigrants are criminals, hes taking about a group within the immigrant population, however you continually ignore that and reiterate his quote incorrectly.

Hey, ItWasMeantToBe19 is just telling it like it is. I thought you Trump supporters liked that quality.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Hey, ItWasMeantToBe19 is just telling it like it is. I thought you Trump supporters liked that quality.

I don't have time for outrage culture and political correctness, but Trump supporters sure are mad at my bluntness.

 

[Downhome]

I feel you brother man, makes it hard to try and have a discussion about him here, since ones attention can become narrowly focused if something stirs up lots of emotion within. Also some folks keep repeating the same stuff thats been proven incorrect multiple times (actual quote regarding immigrants).

We see what we want to see with strokes of truth colored in... Filtering everything with our custom set of rose colored ray bans... (I do it, most all do it to varying degrees, noticing it, embracing and letting it go however is not as common...Personally I see it all as just stories built around ideas that we conclude to be our "selves", which is why I never take anything very personal...Who am "I" anyway...HA!)

Play your part...

You may as well stop trying. There is almost no winning any fight from the other side here.

I am reminded of a situation here the other day. The Obama thread about legalizing pot, people chimed in with logical explanations why it may not be possible, how he can't just say to do it and have it be done. Many examples were given, pictures explaining our government and how there is a long process, and how it isn't a dictatorship.

However, when anything people don't agree with is mentioned by Trump (or anyone else from the GOP), it is instant fear, worry of the end of the world, going on and on about how he will ruin any good done in the history of our country - as if the office of the president is that of a dictator, and with one mentioning of something things can instantly be changed.

I haven't seen such absurd, illogical, fear from people since everyone on the right realized Obama was going to win, and since those on the left realized Bush was being reelected. Only this time it is far more evident, and almost comical.

It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't full of so many blanket statements. Again, that shouldn't be allowed here period, no matter the topic and no matter the side of the aisle you fall on.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I don't expect Trump to get anything done if he's president, he's just a racist fuckhole whom I don't want to become president and is attracting terrible people.

If "this guy is running solely on racism so his supporters are probably racist" is banable, then logical deduction is now banable.

I have asked a bunch of different posters to explain Trump's other, horrible ideas which don't have to do with race (as much) but make literally no sense but none have volunteered a defense. So...

 

[CadetMahoney]

calm down he's not going to be pres. He's just a flase flag for Bush to look appealing and become pres, then everyone be like: "phew we almost got Trump in". When that was the plan all along.

 

[User1608]

People who came to the US knew the risks of moving into a country illegally, i'm sorry to say. A country is under no obligation to grant citizenship to anyone. Relative to the rest of the world Mexico is not a poor country, and immigrants into the US from Mexico tend to be wealthier than average. It takes economic means to successfully navigate through the US border into the country.

There is no humanitarian case for widespread Mexican immigration. Many people in Bangladesh, India and the African continent are in much more severe circumstances, but they don't get to live in the US because they have no way to get here. If mass immigration was about alleviating suffering relatively few people would be taken from Latin America - there are other parts of the world that are much worse.

This isn't a personal issue. Developed countries do not accept low skilled workers en mass as a matter of policy with the exception of the US. So long as advanced societies have broad welfare states this will be true, since citizens can be expensive in such a model. Many proponents of this kind of immigration want to greatly expand the welfare state, putting even more pressure on Governments finances.

If we're going to talk about the costs on government finances/the country, here's an article showing the potentially very negative and long-term effects of removing all undocumented immigrants from the country, ranging from our removal in addition to keeping us out, to a smaller pool of workers in the U.S., the effects it would have on many sectors, to lost spending. This doesn't even include the effect we would collectively have paying into social security;
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/eco...d-take-texas-size-economic-bite-study-n411376

Would the financial cost be worth it? The estimates are in the hundreds of billions of dollars at a minimum.

 

[speculawyer]

calm down he's not going to be pres. He's just a flase flag for Bush to look appealing and become pres, then everyone be like: "phew we almost got Trump in". When that was the plan all along.

I've heard you put forth this conspiracy theory and I think it is ridiculous. He's mocking bush left and right. He's also cornering bush into positions that will sink him in the general. It makes no sense.

 

[spock]

FYI, I'm not from Mexico. Anyway, if we're going to talk about the costs on government finances/the country, here's an article showing the potentially very negative and long-term effects of removing all undocumented immigrants from the country, ranging from a smaller pool of workers, the effects it would have on many sectors, to lost spending. This doesn't even include the effect we would collectively have paying into social security;
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/eco...d-take-texas-size-economic-bite-study-n411376

Would the financial cost be worth it? The estimates are in the hundreds of billions of dollars at a minimum.

The danger of buying into the above is it's along the same lines the GOP used against the ACA with Obama. Give me time, and an agenda and one can create, find or fudge things to present support for a particular side of an argument. The truth is we dont know the impact. It could be more or could be less.There are to many variables and ways to measure "impact" to try and predict any of it.

 

[Glass Joe]

I don't expect Trump to get anything done if he's president, he's just a racist fuckhole whom I don't want to become president and is attracting terrible people.

If "this guy is running solely on racism so his supporters are probably racist" is banable, then logical deduction is now banable.

I have asked a bunch of different posters to explain Trump's other, horrible ideas which don't have to do with race (as much) but make literally no sense but none have volunteered a defense. So...

No offense, but why would anyone even bother trading opposing perspectives with you? What part of "terrible people" and "racist fuckhole" attracts an open-minded discussion? I can't fathom why no one's volunteered for such a delightful exchange of ideas.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Both stories you posted don't support what you're claiming he said. Each link talked about Donald's theory of the Mexican government sending criminals and rapists.

"Mexico is sending rapists" =/= "most Mexicans are rapists"



No, it's talked about with the intent of protecting American interests. A country that includes citizens of many different races.

"When Mexico (meaning the Mexican Government) sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you (pointing to the audience). They’re not sending you (pointing again). They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems to us. They’re bringing drugs.They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people! But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people. It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast.”

So to clarify, when Mexico sends its people Donald meant only some are bad? And a subset of these people are good? Are the rest in a grey area? I thought he was saying most of the people Mexican sends = bad news. So, I figured he was a bigot.

 

[IronicallyTwisted]

If we're going to talk about the costs on government finances/the country, here's an article showing the potentially very negative and long-term effects of removing all undocumented immigrants from the country, ranging from our removal in addition to keeping us out, to a smaller pool of workers in the U.S., the effects it would have on many sectors, to lost spending. This doesn't even include the effect we would collectively have paying into social security;
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/eco...d-take-texas-size-economic-bite-study-n411376

Would the financial cost be worth it? The estimates are in the hundreds of billions of dollars at a minimum.

It wouldn't be, no. To a large extent the ship has sailed.

 

[Glass Joe]

"When Mexico (meaning the Mexican Government) sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you (pointing to the audience). They’re not sending you (pointing again). They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems to us. They’re bringing drugs.They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people! But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people. It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast.”

So to clarify, when Mexico sends its people Donald meant only some are bad? And a subset of these people are good? Are the rest in a grey area? I thought he was saying most of the people Mexican sends = bad news. So, I figured he was a bigot.

That's the hitch I have with his initial statement and his defense of it too. Meaning, if he feels the government is doing it. Like if America decided to just send Jared Fogle and a bunch of sex-offenders away. Where does the "good ones too" fit in with that idea?

The danger of buying into the above is it's along the same lines the GOP used against the ACA with Obama. Give me time, and an agenda and one can create, find or fudge things to present support for a particular side of an argument. The truth is we dont know the impact. It could be more or could be less.There are to many variables and ways to measure "impact" to try and predict any of it.

There's also an awful lot of "worst-case scenario" assumptions about what we think Trump means being taken as fact, which he hasn't said and we just don't know. What if his timeframe of getting rid of all illegals is 10 years? He may feel that shipping off all the existing illegal alien criminals in jail, deporting future criminals, and enforcing the border is enough. I don't think anywhere in his plan for immigration reform is a system to identify and deport existing illegals who are currently laying low and minding their own business.

 

[Froli]

I think I woke up in a alternate universe lol.

 

[params7]

"Repeal the 14th Amendment" does not sound racist to you??

I was born in UAE, never received citizenship or any legal resident right (my parents were not citizens). No birthright whatsoever. Not once, until this day, did I thought that was racist.

I mean I thought the government were jerks when I compared them to the USA. At the same time, I see some logic in not handing over passports to children of foreign visitors due to how the rule could be and probably has been exploited.

 

[Discotheque]

remember this joke?

who would have thought that would already sound dated just a few years later. good lord I can't believe this is happening.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Haha I got my own tag because of this thread. Thanks guys

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Haha I got my own tag because of this thread. Thanks guys

It's scarier every time I read it. Perhaps my tag is a lesson to those who believe ultimate power is a good thing.

 

[Stinkles]

Dont want to get to much further into it but since you are indeed one of the posters I had in mind... There was one claim you keep bringing up. On multiple posts you seem to ignore what Trump has actually said regarding Immigrants as it relates to them being criminals.

As has been posted before his actual quote is more along the lines of some Mexican immigrants are criminals (not all) and some of those criminal immigrants are being ignored or assisted in crossing the boarder by the Mexican government. This is not the same as saying all Mexican immigrants are criminals, hes taking about a group within the immigrant population, however you continually ignore that and reiterate his quote incorrectly.

Why do you keep talking about how misquoted the quote is, but don't ever actually run the quote itself. which is incredibly offensive and racist. It's because you don't give a shit that he's racist. Why? I don't know, but you've gone to great lengths to defend him against accusations of racism while ignoring his actual quote.

If you're a typical trump supporter, you're not doing him or yourself any favors.

 

[Cheebo]

Am I the only one who finds it hilarious someone who took their name from SPOCK of all characters is a hardcore Trump guy? If there was one character in all of Star Trek who is the exact opposite of Trump it would be Mr. Spock.

 

[speculawyer]

Donald Trump supporters are made up of racists and the worst of society. Some Donald Trump supporters, I assume, are good people.

This is funny.

 

[Blader]

calm down he's not going to be pres. He's just a flase flag for Bush to look appealing and become pres, then everyone be like: "phew we almost got Trump in". When that was the plan all along.

...no. If anything, Trump has done a great of completely neutering Jeb's push out of the gate.

 

[Dude Abides]

After Trump loses the nomination, I wonder if the RNC will let him give a convention speech or if he'll have to rabble rouse outside like the last time they had a nativist wacko stirring up the yokels.

 

[Arkeband]

Haha I got my own tag because of this thread. Thanks guys

Was your post satire? I could only read it in a Donald Trump voice.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Was your post satire? I could only read it in a Donald Trump voice.

Yes and no. Yes in that it would never work, no in that this is what the country has come to for some people. I'm literally so tired of our dysfunctional government that I just want to see things actually happen again, even if they're not things I agree with. Like I just want to see a government that actually functions. I remember when the two sides could still disagree on principles but get things done.

That said, the part about there being too many laws I really believe, and I think expiring laws would be a good thing.

 

[Cheebo]

Was your post satire? I could only read it in a Donald Trump voice.

Based on his post history in this thread, no it is not satire.

Yes and no. Yes in that it would never work, no in that this is what the country has come to for some people. I'm literally so tired of our dysfunctional government that I just want to see things actually happen again, even if they're not things I agree with. Like I just want to see a government that actually functions.

That said, the part about there being too many laws I really believe, and I think expiring laws would be a good thing.

You have yet to explain how expiring laws is a good thing. How can any government program function that people have to rely on such as Obamacare expires after 8 years?

It took a long time for major policies like Social Security, Medicare, and so on to take hold and become necessities of society.

Major legislation has always needed time to breathe and take hold to see how it works and what, if anything, needs changed.

Your idea of time limitations on legislation completely destroys this.

What about our MANY laws that involve outside nations in terms of trade policies, financial support, military, and so on? Telling them "woops that is going to expire in 8 years!" doesn't make a lick of sense and would lead to worldwide chaos.

Most of what allows our country to operate be it at the financial level, military, or our relationships with other nations would not function if there was no guarantee it would stlll be in place in 8 years.

Our financial markets would plummet, we would likely be in a great depression and allies would flee from us under your plan. Without any sense of security or guarantee of ANYTHING our government would essentially collapse as would our economy.

Unless what you want is pure anarchy and the complete downfall of the United State government. Then your plan is perfect for that.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Based on his post history in this thread, no it is not satire.



You have yet to explain how expiring laws is a good thing. How can any government program function that people have to rely on such as Obamacare expires after 8 years?

It took longer than 8 years for major policies like Social Security, Medicare, and so on to take hold and become necessities of society.

Major legislation has always needed time to breathe and take hold to see how it works and what, if anything, needs changed.

Your idea of time limitations on legislation completely destroys this.


What about our MANY laws that involve outside nations in terms of trade policies, financial support, military, and so on? Telling them "woops that is going to expire in 8 years!" doesn't make a lick of sense and would lead to worldwide chaos.

You're asking me to write a 200 page paper on how it would work, in part because I would have to find a way to interact nicely with the other 150,000 laws we currently have. When was the last time you saw a bill come across the floor that was readable by a human being? The fucking politicians don't even read them. That's a problem, don't you agree?

So the answer to your question is: I don't know. Nobody does. It's an incomprehensible mess. But the legal code needs to be simpler. And that means fewer laws.

 

[Cheebo]

You're asking me to write a 200 page paper on how it would work, in part because I would have to find a way to interact nicely with the other 150,000 laws we currently have. When was the last time you saw a bill come across the floor that was readable by a human being? The fucking politicians don't even read them. That's a problem, don't you agree?

So the answer to your question is: I don't know. Nobody does. It's an incomprehensible mess. But the legal code needs to be simpler. And that means fewer laws.

But your answer to "too many laws/too hard to understand laws" is "let's destroy the government and cause the complete collapse of the worldwide economy".

Essentially your answer to too many/too confusing laws is "lets nuke it from orbit". Which isn't a solution. And I do not comprehend how you would expect your solution of complete worldwide anarchy would garner any support as a solution to too many confusing laws.

I mean it's like looking at a school district with lower test scores than the rest of the state and deciding the best solution is to set the schools with low test scores on fire.

The answer you give is not something on the same scale of the question your are addressing.

 

[User 406]

Laws are heavy, and we've got so many it's putting pressure on our continental plate. If we don't do something about runaway legislation soon, Yellowstone will explode and kill us all.

Besides, doesn't it just make sense to revisit the idea of whether murder should be illegal periodically? We wouldn't want to end up clinging to an embarrassingly outdated moral concept if more enlightened later generations realized the enormous benefits of culling the population. Like for instance, the generation that would grow up under President Trump after they realize just what his voters did to them.

 

[cpp_is_king]

But your answer to "too many laws/too hard to understand laws" is "let's destroy the government and cause the complete collapse of the worldwide economy".

Essentially your answer to too many/too confusing laws is "lets nuke it from orbit". Which isn't a solution.

If you make the fairly large leap that expiring laws would lead to a collapse of the worldwide economy, then sure. Wouldn't you agree that it would be important to renew laws which, if not renewed, would lead to a collapse of the worldwide economy? What makes you think the person in office would deem it unnecessary to renew such a law?

Anyway, use your imagination a little. I'm not sitting here proposing a bill that I'm going to send to congress. I'm proposing an idea. Which means, in particular, that it's flexible. So make something up that solves your issue, just like I made up the idea in the first place. For example, all laws must come with an expiration date (but it need not be 8 years).

We're arguing over nonsense because you are assuming that my hypothetical is set in stone and completely inflexible.

 

[Cheebo]

Can you imagine trying to be a lawyer or a judge in a society where laws are enacted on the whim of a sole individual at the drop of the hat and every law in the land is completely rebooted every 8 years?

Sounds like there is no problems with that at all to me.

If you make the fairly large leap that expiring laws would lead to a collapse of the worldwide economy, then sure. Wouldn't you agree that it would be important to renew laws which, if not renewed, would lead to a collapse of the worldwide economy? What makes you think the person in office would deem it unnecessary to renew such a law?

Anyway, use your imagination a little. I'm not sitting here proposing a bill that I'm going to send to congress. I'm proposing an idea. Which means, in particular, that it's flexible. So make something up that solves your issue, just like I made up the idea in the first place. For example, all laws must come with an expiration date (but it need not be 8 years).

We're arguing over nonsense because you are assuming that my hypothetical is set in stone and completely inflexible.

Expecting a branch of government to have to juggle which laws to renew and which to let fade, literally of every single law in our nation would take a white house with a staff 100x as large as what we have now and there would be absolutely no time to do anything else because if a vital law slips through the result would be pure anarchy.

I don't think you realize that there are literally thousands and thousands of laws that keep the economy, social programs, our military, and our relations with the rest of the world functioning each and every day.

 

[Cheebo]

edit: double post

 

[Arkeband]

If you make the fairly large leap that expiring laws would lead to a collapse of the worldwide economy, then sure. Wouldn't you agree that it would be important to renew laws which, if not renewed, would lead to a collapse of the worldwide economy? What makes you think the person in office would deem it unnecessary to renew such a law?

Anyway, use your imagination a little. I'm not sitting here proposing a bill that I'm going to send to congress. I'm proposing an idea. Which means, in particular, that it's flexible. So make something up that solves your issue, just like I made up the idea in the first place. For example, all laws must come with an expiration date (but it need not be 8 years).

We're arguing over nonsense because you are assuming that my hypothetical is set in stone and completely inflexible.

I'm pretty sure we're arguing over nonsense because your viewpoint is created from nonsense. Seriously, you personally feel there are 'too many laws' so that's your reasoning for basically a revolving dictatorship?

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

How old is cpp king?

 

[cpp_is_king]

I'm pretty sure we're arguing over nonsense because your viewpoint is created from nonsense. Seriously, you personally feel there are 'too many laws' so that's your reasoning for basically a revolving dictatorship?

Not really, no.

I already made it clear that the revolving dictatorship idea would never work, so feel free to go back and read that post again if you need to see it again. It's a hyperbolic imagining of the opposite extreme of our situation today, where nothing gets done because the checks and balances system has evolved into two diametrically opposed sides, neither of which will budge an inch over anything.

And the fact that there are too many laws today is only a single aspect of the problem with the government today. There are plenty of others, such as the influence of money in politics, the extremism, etc that all contribute to a situation where the whole is greater than the sum of parts in terms of how dysfunctional everything is.

How old is cpp king?

Feel free to guess

 

[Cheebo]

But your plan for allowing all laws to expire every 8 yeas is effectively a dictatorship. Because it gives whomever is in power at that given time virtually limitless power to over-turn or keep any law they wish.

Setting expiration dates on laws, gives far far far more power to whoever is in power when such laws expire. It is difficult how to call a government a democracy with such a policy.

 

[cpp_is_king]

But your plan for allowing ALL laws to expire every 8 yeas is effectively a dictatorship. Because it gives whomever is in power at that given time virtually limitless power to over-turn or keep any law they wish.

Another person who hits reply without reading anything I write. I'm starting to see a pattern here. Carry on

 

[Polip Fawn]

calm down he's not going to be pres. He's just a flase flag for Bush to look appealing and become pres, then everyone be like: "phew we almost got Trump in". When that was the plan all along.

This is nonsense, Bush isn't going to win. Bush was crumbling before the first debate and has in multiple polls and votes been behind even the surgeon.
The Nominee is between Walker, Cruz, Carson, Trump, Rubio, and going by recent polls, you could scratch up Paul.

Bush has done nothing to pick himself up, is freefalling, and only the base he hasn't lost is keeping him a float. Come the next debate that may change drastically, in that he'll be working hard to be on the kids table.

 

[Downhome]

Check out these two videos recently posted to Trump's Facebook...

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10156016850440725

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10156016304105725

 

[Blader]

Yes and no. Yes in that it would never work, no in that this is what the country has come to for some people. I'm literally so tired of our dysfunctional government that I just want to see things actually happen again, even if they're not things I agree with. Like I just want to see a government that actually functions. I remember when the two sides could still disagree on principles but get things done.

That said, the part about there being too many laws I really believe, and I think expiring laws would be a good thing.

You want to see a government that functions against your interests because it's more important that things are happening at all?

I think I had to abandon this back-and-forth last time because it was giving me a headache, and I can already feel it coming on again. :lol But at the risk of repeating myself and delving too deeply into this again, your whole idea just doesn't gel with reality at all. I don't mean it's unrealistic in a "This will never happen" way, it's unrealistic in a "This is not how democratic governance works" way.

Setting expiration dates to laws is a surefire way of ensuring most laws will never work; requiring presidents to unilaterally decide which laws to renew at the beginning of their term ensures that a good amount of their time and resources will be spent on just playing catch up; laws that are unilaterally decided by said executives, with no actual legislators involved, will decidedly ignore the will of the people (missing the whole point of representation); and so on. Fewer laws does not make for a more productive legislature (in fact, this Congress prides itself on how few laws it has passed, yet is also one of the most dysfunctional in history), nor does that have anything to do with writing laws in layman's terms.

If you want a less gridlocked Congress, then vote for better representatives.

This is nonsense, Bush isn't going to win. Bush was crumbling before the first debate and has in multiple polls and votes been behind even the surgeon.
The Nominee is between Walker, Cruz, Carson, Trump, Rubio, and going by recent polls, you could scratch up Paul.

Bush has done nothing to pick himself up, is freefalling, and only the base he hasn't lost is keeping him a float. Come the next debate that may change drastically, in that he'll be working hard to be on the kids table.

There was a lot being made about the 100+ million Bush had raised before entering the race, and how he had laid all this groundwork and was poised to come out harder than anyone expected. But if you look at his early appearances on the campaign trail, he really just kind of sucked at it. Not very good at stringing together points, constantly booed at these major conservative rallies, and so forth. I personally didn't expect Jeb to really perform as well the hype suggested, and there's no denying that Trump has taken even more wind out of his sail.

 

[Polip Fawn]

That said, the part about there being too many laws I really believe, and I think expiring laws would be a good thing.

But you've never actually explained WHY you think this is a good thing to have expiring laws, and yes I read all the posts, you seem to be dodging the issue.

 

[cpp_is_king]

You want to see a government that functions against your interests because it's more important that things are happening at all?

I think I had to abandon this back-and-forth last time because it was giving me a headache, and I can already feel it coming on again. :lol But at the risk of repeating myself and delving too deeply into this again, your whole idea just doesn't gel with reality at all. I don't mean it's unrealistic in a "This will never happen" way, it's unrealistic in a "This is not how democratic governance works" way.

Setting expiration dates to laws is a surefire way of ensuring most laws will never work; requiring presidents to unilaterally decide which laws to renew at the beginning of their term ensures that a good amount of their time and resources will be spent on just playing catch up; laws that are unilaterally decided by said executives, with no actual legislators involved, will decidedly ignore the will of the people (missing the whole point of representation); and so on. Fewer laws does not make for a more productive legislature (in fact, this Congress prides itself on how few laws it has passed, yet is also one of the most dysfunctional in history), nor does that have anything to do with writing laws in layman's terms.

Who said a president would need to unilaterally decide anything?

But you've never actually explained WHY you think this is a good thing to have expiring laws, and yes I read all the posts, you seem to be dodging the issue.

I don't know how to state it any clearer:

Problem: There are too many laws.

Solution: Reduce the number of laws.

Mechanism of implementation: Have laws expire after a period of time.

Which part of this is insufficient for explaining why I think it's a good idea?

As I told the other poster, I'm not proposing a bill, I'm proposing an idea. So change the details if you want to (or don't, whatever). Make only some laws expire. Make the expiration date negotiable. Change who decides the expiration date. Whatever, there's 100 ways you can vary things up. And an obvious consequence of that is that trying to predict the outcome with statements like "IT WOULD LEAD TO A COLLAPSE OF THE WORLD ECONOMY" is a little silly, since there are hundreds of different ways to modify the idea to fix all of the issues that people are raising.

 

[Cheebo]

Who said a president would need to unilaterally decide anything?

You did.

Instead of Congress, I would replace the entire system of checks and balances with something much more simple.

1) The President can pass any policy he wants, except policy concerning the length of his term or the election process.
2) Laws can be overturned by a subsequent president, but will also expire naturally after a period of 8 years.

For starters, this would probably quadruple voter turnout.

Secondly, what works and what doesn't would become completely obvious in a very short amount of time. Currently we have this situation where there is so much red tape to cut through to implement some policy that you never know if changes in economic indicators are due to the current administration, the previous administration, or maybe even the one before that.

Third, You've still got checks and balances here, but they are after-the-fact checks and balances. Anything that's bad would just be instantly killed as soon as the next administration came to office.

And fourth, it would force them to focus on what's really important as the laws would expire after 8 years, and they would have to focus on keeping the really important ones active.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

But you've never actually explained WHY you think this is a good thing to have expiring laws, and yes I read all the posts, you seem to be dodging the issue.

He learns from the best!

 

[Blader]

But you've never actually explained WHY you think this is a good thing to have expiring laws, and yes I read all the posts, you seem to be dodging the issue.

He thinks it's a good idea because it allows you to re-up what's working and softly cancel what isn't. But that's a logistically impossible structure, ignores all the realities of how legislating works, and guarantees the vast majority of laws -- regardless of whether they would have worked or not -- will always be deemed failures.

Under cpp's system, the New Deal, for example, would have never made it.

 

[cpp_is_king]

You did.

I'm legitimately unsure if you just aren't even reading anything after my first post, or if you're actually having a hard time understanding my posts. I wish I knew how to write something that you would understand, but it's hard when you've already decided your response before I've written my post.

 

[Polip Fawn]

Who said a president would need to unilaterally decide anything?



I don't know how to state it any clearer:

Problem: There are too many laws.

Solution: Reduce the number of laws.

Mechanism of implementation: Have laws expire after a period of time.

Which part of this is insufficient for explaining why I think it's a good idea?

As I told the other poster, I'm not proposing a bill, I'm proposing an idea. So change the details if you want to (or don't, whatever). Make only some laws expire. Make the expiration date negotiable. Change who decides the expiration date. Whatever, there's 100 ways you can vary things up. And an obvious consequence of that is that trying to predict the outcome with statements like "IT WOULD LEAD TO A COLLAPSE OF THE WORLD ECONOMY" is a little silly, since there are hundreds of different ways to modify the idea to fix all of the issues that people are raising.

Pretty sure too many laws has NOTHING to do with the two sides getting nothing done, and that seems obvious if you were paying attention.

You also still have not explained to me how it's GOOD, all you are saying is you believe there should be less laws, but don't explain how that's actually a "problem" the most you have said is "things aren't getting done" but what does that have to do with laws? Also why are you assuming putting an expiry on laws means there will be less laws? In fact, wouldn't that encourage more laws and experimentation to see if certain solutions work or not?

You say you propose an idea, but it's not really an idea.

 

[cpp_is_king]

You say you propose an idea, but it's not really an idea.

I'm pretty sure it is an idea by definition.

idea
[ahy-dee-uh, ahy-deeuh ]
1. any conception existing in the mind as a result of mental understanding, awareness, or activity.
2. a thought, conception, or notion:

 

[Arkeband]

I don't know how to state it any clearer:

Problem: There are too many laws.

Solution: Reduce the number of laws.

Mechanism of implementation: Have laws expire after a period of time.

Which part of this is insufficient for explaining why I think it's a good idea?

The thing about laws is their validity isn't measured by how many you're able to fit into your head at any given time.

I guess what you're failing to convey is why too many laws are bad, which is why I read your original post like Trump.

"We got too many X in this country lets get ridda 'um!"
"Yeah! Yeah!"

It's not a very deep pool of thought, I'm sure you know this but are just defending it now because you came up with it.

 

[Blader]

Problem: There are too many laws.

You haven't really articulated why this is a problem or what the threshold for "too many" laws even is. Is there some proof that government becomes more or less dysfunctional in relation to the quantity of laws that exists?