And he has taken multiple dumps on many of the Republican leaders that have been part of my reasoning for not wanting to associate with the party.
I don't think anyone knows exactly what that means yet, but if you gotta put some kind of label on me I suppose that would be the one to fit. I tend to lean Libertarian, but would like for them to get some actual leadership before it becomes a party willing of endorsement imo.
Perhaps just different sources perhaps. I'm guessing the recipe calls for a hint of fascism? edit: the rare double perhaps...i need to go home
exactly why he's a populist. The "swing" that got him elected were people who had never voted before in their lives but were motivated by him as a person/celebrity/demagogue I thought this was supposed to be a government not of men, but of laws
Yes, I believe so. I mean, it's sophomoric to boil down the differences between this election and the last. Barack Obama was not a candidate, and there's no doubt that Hillary Clinton is not as popular as he was, all things considered equal. So I don't want to give off the impression that it's a one-variable difference More what I meant is that the polling was so off in a completely unexpected way. A lot of white, rural people who aren't that politically involved or interested generally were not being polled and ended up showing up in droves to vote for him
Amash sums up my thoughts perfectly on Facebook: "Like President Obama's executive actions on immigration, President Trump's executive order overreaches and undermines our constitutional system. It's not lawful to ban immigrants on the basis of nationality. If the president wants to change immigration law, he must work with Congress. The president's denial of entry to lawful permanent residents of the United States (green card holders) is particularly troubling. Green card holders live in the United States as our neighbors and serve in our Armed Forces. They deserve better. I agree with the president that we must do much more to properly vet refugees, but a blanket ban represents an extreme approach not consistent with our nation's values. While the executive order allows the admittance of immigrants, nonimmigrants, and refugees "on a case-by-case basis," arbitrariness would violate the Rule of Law. Ultimately, the executive order appears to be more about politics than safety. If the concern is radicalism and terrorism, then what about Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others? Finally, we can't effectively fight homegrown Islamic radicalism by perpetuating the “us vs. them” mindset that terrorists use to recruit. We must ensure that the United States remains dedicated to the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and liberty. It can't be stated strongly enough that capitalism creates prosperity and improves assimilation into society."
Finally something to maybe get excited about Trump signs executive order requiring that for every one new regulation, two must be revoked http://www.politico.com/story/2017/...one-new-regulation-two-must-be-revoked-234365
Hell yeah, all of this nuanced shit is too confusing. Let's go back to junior high where I get 2 enters for every dessert I give you.
I think you might be surprised how many dormant, unused regulations are in the CFR. It will be quite easy for most agencies, at least for a year or two, to cut two immaterial ones
I'm a big "law needs to be usable by laymen" type. The sheer bulk of the CFR is a detriment and makes the citizenry that much more averse to pursuing growth. I fully admit this as a young legal professional, the greater number of regs—no matter if they're applicable or not—requires a greater use of lawyers and experts, which is inefficient.
Also it forces regulators to do more cost-benefit analysis. Forcing unelected bureaucrats to only pursue truly necessary regulation is a net positive. On the flip, there's a chance this could create higher transaction costs (the costs of sorting through the register and nuking old stuff). That's why I said "maybe" in my first post.
There's at least a little irony that Trump used a broad, thoughtless regulation to try and curb further regulation.
Let's be honest, people are going to right new regulations that cover the regulations they remove. So I guess if your concern is too many file cabinets, that might help.
It is dumb that he would sign an Executive Order instead of just saying my personal policy or goal is to do this.
A far better solution would be legislation requiring full notice-and-comment for all regulation, thus subjecting all rules to a true debate. The interpretative-rule loophole has grown out of control
If anybody would like to read more about what I'm discussing, here's the SCOTUS opinion from 2015 that probes the problem of agencies passing rules unchecked under the guise of them being new "interpretations" of umbrella rules that did receive notice-and-comment: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1041_0861.pdf The conservative wing concurred with Sotomayor's opinion, which indeed was the correct interpretation of the Administrative Procedures Act. However, several of the justices are essentially screaming out for Congress to amend the APA so rules are passed in a more democratic fashion.
Follow up working paper for those interested in the subject: https://regulatorystudies.columbian...ck_Implementing-Two-For-One 12-2016_final.pdf Discusses some of the ramifications of the "PAYGO," which is apparently what the academics are calling this "remove old regs to write new ones" idea. Looks at how it operates in UK, Australia, and Canada. Says it can work, but the machinery Trump has opted for will likely fall short of requirements. Need true legislation.
Details here http://www.fed-soc.org/events/detai...m-the-first-amendment-in-contemporary-society Lot of great speakers
Congrats man that's awesome. I doubt I make it to Columbia this weekend but I'd love to watch it. Will it be posted on YouTube?