Even if he said that in the debates, he's towing the party line on those now.
And yeah, as others said, this would be great, but neither party is going to allow this to go anywhere. Sad but true.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Donald Trump releases first policy plan that I don't have major objections to
- Thread starter Rentahamster
- Start date
- Status
Even if he said that in the debates, he's towing the party line on those now.
And yeah, as others said, this would be great, but neither party is going to allow this to go anywhere. Sad but true.
The question is how much of this does Trump actually believe in and how much of this is just him trying to drum up populist/anti-establishment support against an insider candidate?
I don't trust him to actually go through with attempting to push through any lobbying reforms should he get into office. It's clear he'll say whatever he can to get support regardless of whether or not he believes it. The only thing Trump supports is Trump.
I don't trust him to actually go through with attempting to push through any lobbying reforms should he get into office. It's clear he'll say whatever he can to get support regardless of whether or not he believes it. The only thing Trump supports is Trump.
While not against the policy, the question is how?
The president is not a King. Executive orders can only go so far, and will be challanged in court.
This is just some hot air, which is why serious candidates are much more muted in promises of reform in this area. You need a national movement electing congresscritters, and that's just not happening.
The president is not a King. Executive orders can only go so far, and will be challanged in court.
This is just some hot air, which is why serious candidates are much more muted in promises of reform in this area. You need a national movement electing congresscritters, and that's just not happening.
People should stop trying to tie themselves into knots over saying that we don't know what Trump really thinks.
"He's really pro-choice because he was democrat all his life and he must have paid for some all his life after all!"
The guy is the only major politician that said he wants to punish women for taking an abortion.
And all his "good ideas" are like that.
He's supposedly pro single player, except for what he said during the whole campaign and what's on his website.
and now we're supposed to believe he wants to remove lobbyist when his campaign is full of them.
"He's really pro-choice because he was democrat all his life and he must have paid for some all his life after all!"
The guy is the only major politician that said he wants to punish women for taking an abortion.
And all his "good ideas" are like that.
He's supposedly pro single player, except for what he said during the whole campaign and what's on his website.
and now we're supposed to believe he wants to remove lobbyist when his campaign is full of them.
Remember when Trump was going to self-fund his campaign and said he wouldn't take outside money? And then he started taking donations and took outside money while charging his own campaign huge amounts of money on his own businesses.
This is like that.
He didn't say he was pro-single payer in the debates, he said he didn't want to have people dying in the streets. He also defended planned parenthood as much as severely pro-life Kasich did for the other services it provides that aren't abortion.
This is like that.
He didn't say he was pro-single payer in the debates, he said he didn't want to have people dying in the streets. He also defended planned parenthood as much as severely pro-life Kasich did for the other services it provides that aren't abortion.
If he could actually implement banning to lobbying. I would actually vote for him. I could ignore everything else, just for that. That is without a doubt the biggest poisoned well in politics. Between Saudi Arabia, Banks, Isreali, Gas companies, Health Insurance, Pharms...
But, LOL, He isn't doing it.
But, LOL, He isn't doing it.
You could ignore rampant racism, misogyny, actual sexual assault for laws against lobbying?
You must REALLY care about lobbying.
This is a very good move. Hope its talked about in the next debate.
Yeah i could see people thinking this way.
It the biggest problem in politics right now IMO.
Yeah i could see people thinking this way.
It the biggest problem in politics right now IMO.
Trump spouts hot air. He's held or still holds multiple stances on single issues. This plan just seems to serve two purposes. One is separating himself as the outsider and Hillary as the money'd politician. Two, puts forth a policy no one is going to disagree with other than he won't get it passed. Just another way to paint Hillary as crooked.
Yeah the biggest problem in politics right now is clearly lobbying and not the fact that paid elected officials are working hard to make sure the government doesn't work.
e: It's BS anyway as it only moves the problem around, big money will instead lobby the elected officials by deciding who they give money to and actively campaign against any lawmaker that goes against them.
No, it's not. It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how any of this works by anyone who does think it's a good idea! Lobbying isn't only a corporate thing! Environmental groups, gun control groups, public health groups, voting rights groups, immigrant's rights groups, freaking everyone uses lobbying to try and get Congress on their side. Going into a congressman's office and making a case for an issue is lobbying! This shit isn't black and white, despite how some people make it seem.
Yes everybody uses lobbying to an extent but certain entities like the NRA are abusing the system like crazy. Lobbying is part of the reason why we can't get gun reform despite the public in general supporting it.
Either it needs to go or be heavily revamped.
Dude Abides
Banned
Ok but you can't just bar certain people from talking to elected officials.
Except that lobbying is basically protected by the first amendment of the constitution. You can't ban people form speaking with elected officials about what their interests are and you can't ban people form donating to politicians simply because they had said conversation.
You fix lobbying through:
1. term limits. Meaningful term limits would increase the pool of people trying to be lobbyists, sure, but it would also put a timer on any politician's value which caps the benefits of long term lobbying relationships. It would also get people out of the system sooner when they've lost the original idealism most politicians enter the Congress with and likely see a broader spectrum of politicians, not just lawyers and MBAs dominating the game.
2. Repeal Citizen's United so that lobbyists can't run unchecked and unobserved through PACs, making them live within the much tighter constraints of personal donation limits and the bundling approaches of old.
Those two alone get you pretty damn far. Restore the fairness doctrine and you'd take another big step. I'd also suggest a political donation tax (assessed and paid in by the recipient) of 10% offset by the first $250.00 of a political donation being tax deductible (this makes the maximum $2500 personal donation effectively tax neutral). This would encourage the average person to donate while applying a healthy tax on the major donations and bundlers. That tax would go to a public financing pool earmarked to local and state races for candidates pulling >10% of public support but with less than a reasonable threshold value of private financing (including their personal contributions).
And how many of Trump's proposed reforms will fix those issues? The answer is 0. The NRA is powerful because they basically control a large block of voters who will vote on one issue and one issue only: guns. That's where their power comes from.
Fascism (and all of the bigotry it entails) and leaving our world allies out to suffer is never a good idea. Not to mention the two positives you espouse are diametrically opposed to the party he's running for and his own statements that constantly contradict each other. The guy is a snake oil salesman.
I dislike certain lobbies in government, sure, but some of the time the positives do actual good for the people. I feel like it takes a lot of privilege to dismiss the good.
That said reform is most certainly needed there...and Hillary is actually actually addressing this somewhat with her desire to get rid of CU.
shadowsdarknes
Member
He will sell planned parenthood funding down the river in order to work alongside the Republicans to get things done.
That's the reality of aligning with the GOP.
There is a big difference here. One side has tons of money and the other don't.
Cannot defend this at all. Special interest have no place in politics.
Term limits would literally just make Congress more depended on lobbyists. Institutional knowledge is carried forward by two groups: elder congressmen and lobbyists. Get rid of one and the other gets more powerful. We can't possibly expect politicians to be experts on all the shit we need them to be experts on without help, if you take away one of the two groups that carry the knowledge and experience forward where do you think the freshman will get it from?
Vigilant Walrus
Member
But it corrupts the process. Undeniable. John Stewart puts it really well: https://youtu.be/WLuM7wCWZvg?t=1m59s
It's not a good argument to flaunt the good thing and act like it's a give-or-take. Every parliamentary system throughout the ages have shown itself to be selfishly influenced by personal gains superseeding the act of serving the best interests of the people. To ignore this is not just outrageously ignorant- It's almost insane.
Ignore Trump in this- Him saying anything, doesn't matter.
What matters is that Hillary has vowed to deal with Citizens United within her first month in office. What matters is that it has to stop with election fundraising deciding more and more of the process as Americans low voter turnout is connected to the effects of throwing hundreds of millions of dollars after campaigning.
Elections are bought and paid for, because most people vote for the guy who panders the most to them. Most people don't know what the fuck is going on, and that plays into how they vote. Thats just how it is.
So money decides the process. There is no question about that, and its for that reason that the US has a history with electing famous, powerful and rich officials. From actors to business men and powerful "dynasty" like families who can use money to move ahead in the herd.
Vast amount of people don't know who the fuck Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Bernie Sanders or other non 100+ million dollar backed politicians are. Political campaigns are campaigns for a character. Thats why you have all this bullshit focusing on making them seem like a nice guy to have a beer with or just focusing on them as a person. its a much easier sell to sell the character of a president as someone who can change laws and legislation by pressing a button. And the actual policies are unknown to many of the people who vote for that person.
Disinfranchisement, apathy, laziness and cultural norms have changed a lot. During Abraham Lincolns run they would do speeches for 8+ hours to have outrageous scrutiny on every position, on every subject so you'd know the positions on everything, and that would be what you had to go on. Now a days, most people get their opinions from sound bytes like "make american great again". It's just the dumbing down of the political process in an era where fewer and fewer people have any faith in the process at all.
And the conflict of interest poised from lobbying is a massive part of that.
BotoxAgent
Member
He lies so much. He could easily change his mind or contradict himself in the same sentence. He has no credibility anymore.
A large swath of those voters agree that there needs to be some level of gun reform.
Trump's policies won't get rid of lobbying, just make it harder. His policies don't go far enough for me but whatever.
whyamihere
Banned
Exactly.
Except that question was phrased poorly and reasonable gun control is defined differently by different people. Also, you addressed none of what I put forward. My point isn't that it wouldn't get rid of lobbying, but that it wouldnt affect the power the various lobbys have at the moment. It's literally a bullshit idea put forward to make people feel better.
ShironRedshift
Member
Nah, they'd do nothing because they'd be struck down as unconstitutional for violating the 1st Amendment (in the same way that Citizens United was upheld). They're useless in their proposed form. This is all either hot air or another demonstration that Trump doesn't understand complex topics like Constitutional law or the reasoning behind cases such as Citizens United.
I don't think anyone has said it's a "give or take" but to go to the extreme to want to remove it entirely when there are lobbyists that have helped in regards to:
women's rights, racial minority rights, LGBT rights, etc. etc. etc. comes across as a truly privileged statement.
I dislike certain lobbies but painting them all with the same brush is foolhardy.
Getting rid of CU will go a long way to one of the big underlying issues without eliminating the good that can be done.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
That wouldn't be a factor if the elected weak career politicians cared less about their reelections and keeping their seats, than actually serving the people.
There is UNDISPUTEABLE evidence that shows the correlation between corporate profits and lobbying:
And this undermines the capitalistic structure that is supposed to ensure that competition yields good products and free markets. Which is why the state of internet providers in the US are so horrible shitty.
https://hbr.org/2016/05/lobbyists-are-behind-the-rise-in-corporate-profits
Ok, normally I ignore you because you make long and verbose posts that makes 0 sense and ignore reality, but this I need to push back on. How the hell do you think politicians get reelected? Do you think they only get voted in once? If the people of a district decide they like the job their representatives do they will get reelected. It's not up to you or me to decide if a politician is representing their constituency, it's up to their constituency! As a result politicians do what their voters want them to do regardless of what you or I think.
BlastProcessing
Member
One of the first things a fascist does when he comes to power is clean house. This policy gives Trump cover to fill Washington with his cronies. It gives him a righteous justification to go on a witch hunt.
Like all of Trump's plans it is an emotional plea that completely and willfully ignores the realities of how government works. I would recommend that the people who are applauding this take a step back and reevaluate.
Like all of Trump's plans it is an emotional plea that completely and willfully ignores the realities of how government works. I would recommend that the people who are applauding this take a step back and reevaluate.
It would have to be reworked and it probably would be challenged in court but it feels like there could be some way of wording it or done that would make the intent of most of it possible.
Obviously Citizen's United has to go but I see no issue with implementing Trump's policies (not that he ever would or could do so) in conjunction with an overturn of CU as part of a larger lobbying reform.
Except, as I continue to point out, Trump's reforms would DO NOTHING TO REFORM THE ISSUES WITH THE SYSTEM. They're designed to make you feel good and nothing else.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
That's not what its about thoug. It's about protecting someone or something on the guise that because they have done some good they should be cut some slack.
Example; Hamas frequently sponsors schools, donates to local communities and helps many many people. That doesn't mean their extremist terrorism any less acceptable, and for someone to piss on those who have died in the wake by their hands by highlighting their good deeds is incredible shortsighted and deplorable.
You'd never say that someone gets a free pass just because they do some nice things or a practice is okay because it occasionally does good. Its done endlessly bad compared to good. Think about when lobbying had lead to actual destabilization of other countries like with UFC in Guatemala. It's absolutely bonkers what corporate greed has done.
At every level. Like with ALEC making the lives of millions worse at even the lowest levels of local legislation.
Secondly, it seems to highlight this idea that there is no other way to help womens rights, LGBT and others. Like; Lets keep this fucked up corrupt system because there is no other way we can humanly possible be decent.
Have you ever thought about that the same practices that helped them are lessened significantly compared to the practices in the same stature that enslaved them and denied them access in the first place?
Without a world of lobbying, nobody knows how it would have played it out. Its possible that minorities through a fairer court and legal system un-influenced by money and greed from the personal gain of corrupt politicians would have yielded in a lot more and a lot better improvements for the lives of minorities.
Regarding nr 5: it was a semi-big news item in Sweden yesterday that Swedish members of parliament have received up to 40-50 emails each from Trump and his kids, asking for campaign donations between 30 and 200 dollars.
Apparently it is forbidden for them to beg for funds outside the US?
Apparently it is forbidden for them to beg for funds outside the US?
Vigilant Walrus
Member
You didn't read the article. I don't think you understand the issue at all.
Only us citizens can donate to a campaign.
ShironRedshift
Member
It's also completely undermined by those other policies, if he were to try. Trump said he wants to fill the Supreme Court with more judges like Antonin Scalia. In doing so, we'd be going further down the road of money=free speech. Thus, if Trump were to actually try something like this, it would be his own Supreme Court appointees that would strike it down for the same reason Scalia upheld Citizens United. His various policies and stances here are in direct contradiction to each other here. No way a Scalia-filled court would let a proposal like this stand. None.
So, either he's an idiot who doesn't realize that and has no clue how judges like Scalia actually voted on these 1st amendment issues (likely) or he's lying about one or the other. And if the latter, there's no way of knowing which he's lying about and it does no one any good to just assume that the thing he's lying about is whatever one would be personally more beneficial to them, as those are the kind of assumptions that have a habit of backfiring and always a stupid, stupid risk to take.
So yeah, no matter which way you slice it this is a non-starter.
I'm going to go bang my head against a desk now.
Pupperbabysassy
Member
This. If he wasn't such an attention whore that lacked any leadership qualities I think this would be a closer race.
ShironRedshift
Member
Not without making it completely toothless. If it in any way stops people from meeting or talking to elected officials, bam, violation of the first. Similar if it stops them from donating to support politicians they support. Those are both well-established forms of free speech (and would be even more so under the kind of Supreme Court Trump wants). There's no way of making these work and actually have any weight or bite to them at all, and avoid any loopholes being left, without running into some 1st amendment issue or another.
Lord Frieza
Member
Lol, at anyone saying Trump has good ideas. Jesus, people, where are you been?
Given the pushback from the right-wing, I can't help but disagree with you 110%. And again, it takes extreme amounts of privilege to even propose such ideas.
I have said before I'm in favor of gutting CU. Even in the post you quoted. I also dislike certain lobbies and the power they wield in regards to our political process. I agree on those basic fundamentals. But to just propose the extreme of getting rid of all of them and acting like what-if scenarios would have benefited minority populations (and benefited them better no less?) is entirely pointless. Your propositions don't live within reality and ignore precisely WHAT has been standing in the way of minorities/women obtaining even basic human rights. I'll give you a hint: It's not what you sure as hell seem to think it is. It's not like the right-wing would suddenly be okay with other individuals existing just because lobbies were gone. That makes less than 0 sense.
It's the right-wing playing to their base. It's their base itself. Without lobbies for us we sure as hell would have made less headway than we did. Don't act like you give a shit for minorities when you want to throw us to the wolves and wash your hands clean of it.
The big issue with the lobbying system is Citizens United. His package though would again make it harder for lobbying to exist.
It obviously won't fix most of the issues, which is why there would have to be more regulations put into place. The five year restriction won't fix the fundamental concerns but it's not bad policy to try and push through.
There could be more efforts of transparency and possible restrictions on donations. Citizens United really screwed things up and would have to be the first thing to go though.
ShironRedshift
Member
Which he very quickly abandoned as soon as he realized they were hurting him in the Republican primaries, and haven't looked back since, which just shows how serious he really is about any of this. And people get upset that Clinton evolved on her stance on same-sex marriage or is just "pandering" about this or that...
Even if I knew for sure 100% that Trump could implement these policy goals (not even counting the numerous positive benefits from lobbying), I would never vote for Trump. Donald Trump is a monstrous human being and the things has done and said in this election are inexcusable. His temperament is trash and he should never, ever be in a position where he commands our military. I have less confidence in Donald Trump running this country than I would have if you were to put a 10 year old child in charge.
ShironRedshift
Member
Of course, if you feel that way, then the problem with that is that Trump wants to appoint more judges like Scalia (who was in the majority in that case), not less, which are the reason Citizens United exists to begin with. Nothing would change in regards to that because of that fact alone and makes this whole discussion pointless.
Trump isn't getting elected so this whole discussion is mostly moot. I'm just talking about the policies in of themselves.
many places
Member
Can we defund Pence? Just defund his ass.
Citizens United was 100% a correct decision, and it boggles my mind that anyone could disagree. How can supposed liberals argue that it is constitutional to prohibit the publication of a documentary criticizing a politician.
That's aside from the equal protection issues that the exemption of media companies brings up.
Which is not to say that the issue the law sought to address doesn't exist, but the existence of a problem does not give you the justification to blatantly violate the first amendment.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked