Donald Trump released a video announcing his agenda for his “first day in office.” One of the things he said is, “I will formulate a rule which says that for every one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated.” Can we count the number of ways this is absurd and dangerous?
Let's start by asking which agency would promulgate this "rule," and would have to hold a period of public comment on it. Yes, absurd on its face, pandering to the ignoramus base. So our job is to educate, by asking such questions.
This is what will happen under the pathological liar and narcissist, "The Donald", and R'Con extremists. We all will pay an enormous price for the extremist of R'Cons and corrupt corporate politics of the DLC DINO Dems............the pitch by some that Trump is playing the right and will "do the right thing" is at best hopeful delusion, the man is a fool - rich and powerful, but an ego-driven fool and inveterate liar all the same.
No, it simply cannot be done under the structure of US Government. DJT's foolishness is in his ignorance of that.
This "two-for-one" regulation swap belies Trump's complete ignorance of the UDS Code or how government works.
What constitutes a "regulation" in the Code of Federal Regulations? A whole paragraph? a sub-paragraph? and sub-sub paragraph?
A smart agency can simply introduce a whole new important paragraph in its regulations and swap it with two obscure and unimportant sub-sub-sub paragraphs buried in the code.
For the past four decades the US has needed a plan to add two progressive regulations for every New Deal regulation rescinded, and two new progressive programs added for every New Deal program cut.
With all the New Deal cuts made since Saint Ronny ascended the throne the US would be the most progressive nation on earth by now and Eddie Munster would have disincentives to make the cuts to Medicare and Social Security that he has been proposing since he arrived in DC in 1999.
Finally! Yes, it is We The People who do our best for each other. The things we choose to make our communities better are not necessarily "rights" or "entitlements", but all manner of protections for each other against well-known bullies with money or power. It's not "gummint", it's We The People.
"In the United States government was once supposed to be about We the People organizing to accomplish things that make our lives better. We vote, our representatives impose taxes and spend and make laws and regulations toward that end."
Why didn't it turn out that way? Because We the Sheep left government in the hands of oligarchy representatives instead of making the laws ourselves.
"Can be destroyed"? Probably. Will all be destroyed at once? Certainly not by someone who has so little understanding of how the government works. You mention the SCOTUS. How did they uphold what little progress we've made on medical insurability, and every attempt in 40 years to end reproductive rights (yeah, I know, that one, but as RBG pointed out, they only upheld outlawing a single procedure), and oh btw, marriage equality? They forced the blinking conservatives of the Presbyterian Church to give up, for pity's sake (and they gave up billions in reserve property).
We have a Constitution that is flawed, yes, but it does actually have checks and balances that work sometimes and work almost all the time to keep idiocy from reigning (oh! reign? say hi to your sovereign for me, eh?).
Sure, PEOPLE know this, Trump doesn't. This bothered me many months ago in his campaign when he was in a venue in Florida and they had reached capacity of people according to the fire code. The absolute moron of a man railed from the podium against them not letting in (as he exaggerated how many were outside but still) "thousands more" the he was SURE could "fit in here". He was claiming it was political.
This bothered me a lot because they actually know what capacity is, and there is a very good reason for it, in case of fire or panic. Trump, obviously with no experience, knowledge of this just saw it as stopping him from doing what he wanted. I thought at the time how badly this bodes for the future,
Acting like a true Republican. Private is good, government is bad. Well get ready for drinking water that makes you sick, air that gives you asthma, pesticides and herbicides with your dinner, and much more.
I kind of wonder whether his excitement over the "thousands" crowding his rallies might have something to do with his unfamiliarity with attendance being affordable, if not downright free. I mean, all of his real estate is luxury level. That was a "cottage" by his Bedminster golf course where he held court a week ago, before jetting off (and billing us, I understand, via the Secret Service, to pay for use of his own airline) to Mira Lago for Thanksgiving. Who do you think he'll send out next year to deal with the feathered turkeys?
Does this mean he may take from us the Government Regulation currently preventing an angry mob of citizens from backing a trailer-mounted gallows up to the White House steps?
A Trump presidency is gearing up to be one of the most destructive in US history! We must fight this ignorance until our last breath or until he gives up.
to that smug Canadian Don - go choke on your horse meat while spewing your waste into Puget sound - screw you and YOUR monarch - we got rid of those years ago - like we say down here - love it or leave it
I'm so glad Killary and the neolibs lost. Plus, the menacing, all-powerful, election controlling DNC that I read about here is finally being brought to heal. I mean, that mattered. It really did.
It's time for us to celebrate our victory. Why aren't more people writing happier diaries and comments? Maybe the title to this diary should have been, "Donald Trump, in Boon to Pure Progressives, wants to give Country Dose of Hard Right Conservatism on Regulations, Defying Neolibs." This is what we wanted, right?
Dude, all of the things you mentioned, wait for it, are in fact poisoned. Already. Now.
face palm ...
..and now we see that though he wants less restrictions on business, he is prioritizing making a new law against flag burning. In other words more restrictions on citizens, people, not less.
Excellent example. He proposes revocation of citizenship as a punishment. And then what? Deportation? Where to? Or has he never seen a protest by an American of European heritage? And that's assuming the SCOTUS would no longer see it as speech. If I could send him an image, it would be my neighbor's yard, just before the election, his TRUMP sign framed by the rain-soaked flag, drooping into the mud because the rope broke or something. It was that way for days. But I guess that wouldn't be as bad as burning.
"... or a year in jail." That's all his own citizenship means to him?