Trump-" "Require for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated."

This is one of the things Trump wants to put through in his first 100 days of office-when he isn’t in a dozen different courtrooms suing a dozen different women for defamation of what little character he has left, I guess. Could someone please explain to me how this could possibly work?

First, you change the fundamental way the government works…

Here’s my response, from the longer thread:

I might have been too cynical, I suppose. It’s possible to support this idea if you think there are “too many government regulations” which “hurt real Americans” in some ill-defined fashion, but you’re not a deep thinker or accustomed to facts. I’m sure a number of the people who are most on-board with this plan honestly believe that there’s a law against offending minorities, given that they can’t tell the jokes their parents told without getting dirty looks or a write-up from HR. It fits with the whole “President as King” belief apparently shared by the most ardent Trump supporters, in that both reflect a compete ignorance of what the Federal government is and how it works. It probably also correlates with the belief that “anti-racist is code for anti-white” and Affirmative Action means utterly unqualified minorities being hired instead of qualified white males.

If you believe there are too many regulations the obvious approach is to list the ones you want to delete–not gimmicks like this .

How is there not a “Trump’s Gettysburg Address” thread"?

Good god, what a fucking fruitcake.

It is supposed to work not as an actual policy goal but as a marketing tool to a certain segment of conservatives, trying to lure them back to voting for him as opposed to staying home, voting Johnson, or even voting for Clinton.

No, this potentially still swayable segment is not deep thinkers and facts are less the issue than decreasing government and governmental regulation orthodoxy. Many so-called “limited government conservatives” want to hear that statement of faith and are used to not getting too bogged down in what the details would actually mean. Details only give things to object to.

It couldn’t. End of need to discuss. It would be unconstitutional to pass a law requiring that other unspecified laws would have to be repealed for every new law passed.

As mentioned already, this is just more polit-babble. Nothing more.

Donald Trump can and will propose any kind of unconstitutional nonsense his ignorant mouth can vocalize. But that isn’t the scary part. The scary part is that his dumb fucking supporters eat this shit up. They feed off of it, and they feel good about it.

It’s not even clear (and deliberately so) whether this refers to legislation under Congress, or regulation as defined by executive agencies, thus allowing him to backtrack as convenient and making the thing both incredibly stupid and meaningless at the same time. It’s a"2-for-1" that means absolutely nothing, along with “Lock her up”, “All those women are lying”, and “Make America Great Again”. It not only makes me sick, the demagoguery is getting closer and closer to the spirit of 1930s Germany.

Just list it as Trump Stupid Idea Number 2567, or whatever.

But does that mean we then have to de-list Trump Stupid Ideas Nos. 2565 and 2566?

The interesting implication is in order to repeal and replace Obamacare something else would have to go too. What else do you want to eliminate Donald?

Probably the Department of Education.

Well, Trump loves the poorly educated!

But, you know, it’s REGULATION! <handwave handwave handwave> Everyone knows that gummint REGULATION! <handwave handwave handwave> is smothering American business and ruining lives!

Whaddya want, gory details?

It’s crafted to appeal to simpletons, whose votes he already has locked up.

It is not even clear how to determine what counts as a regulation.

Can I pass my omnibus agricultural bill as long as I eliminate the following two regulations
“sweet chocolate shall contain no greater than 15% chocolate liquor and contain less than 12% milk solids”?

i believe someone has confused organize your closet with run a government.

i was told i can’t buy anything new with out eliminating 2 old things.

The right wing has been trying to pretend simple solutions exist for complex problems for years, probably because their base supporters are not capable of higher thought. This “2 for 1” regulation shit is the same thing, its gimmick legislation, repackaging something difficult with a zingy one-liner or a catchy name and patting themselves on the back like its never been tried before.

I have a few more gimmick legislation suggestions for Donald’s campaign:

  • For ever percent of tax cuts on the wealthy, the poor and middle class must get a double reduction of their taxes

  • For every dollar of military spending, an equal amount must be spent on social programs for the poor

  • Every anti-abortion law must give an estimate of the number of abortions they reduce per year, and if they don’t meet those requirements, the law automatically is repealed

  • For each piece of pork injected as an Amendment into an unrelated bill, the Congressman must eat a whole ham in one sitting

  • Each new bill that Republicans introduce must be read aloud by the sponsors during prime-time on CSPAN

  • For every country that Republicans want to bomb, a random Republican will be asked to find it on a map

  • Before any intervention can be done in the Middle East, the supporting Congressman must write a 10 page essay about the differences between Shia and Sunni Islam to be graded by an 8th grade Social Studies teacher. If they don’t get at least a B+, then no intervention

Dear Congress,

There are too many regulations. For every new regulation you pass, please delete two.

Yours sincerely,

Abe Simpson

P.S. I am not a crank.