Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Trump isn't an effective politician, so whatever people were saying in 2016 was exactly right.

Really? He helped get the first comprehensive tax reform in almost 40 years. That's the exact definition of effective.

The "tax reform" was in no way a tax reform in the way it is usually touted. Complexity went up.

Reform just means change. It doesn't require simplification.

By that definition, Bush passed one also.

The comprehensive tax reform voted on in the dead of night with changes written in the margins? That one?

From your strong reaction, Trump’s political career to date has been effective indeed!

Ebola (for example) is extremely effective. That doesn’t mean you have to like it, or want it anywhere near the White House.

Or maybe like the ACA? Come on, that's how bills get passed.

It's not. None of this is normal.

The ACA went through public debate for a year. This didn't.

Not be too pedantic, but if you can’t get elected, you can’t be effective. By that measure, Trump was more effective than every other Presidential candidate, Hillary in particular. He is now President, and she is an unemployed politician.

I think whichever party puts forth the most electable candidate will, by definition, win the next election. Of what I perceive as that pool of individuals, I see Jeff Bezos as one of the better options.

So what you are doing is looking for someone who can win, not necessarily be an effective leader.

It's the kind of thinking that's got people seriously jabbing about Oprah as a Democratic candidate. We really want to put someone who was a talk show host and has evangelized quack science for the past 30 years in charge of the country, because she's all of a sudden brave enough to speak out against Harvey Weinstein (nevermind that she was his friend)?

The scary thing is, she'd probably beat Trump, that doesn't mean it would be good for this country. It really can't be that difficult to pick someone who is both more electable than Trump and also capable. If we can't do that, then let's fold up as a country and go home.

We don't have to default to someone like Oprah or Bezos. We can do better.

As maddening as it is, it does make sense when the priority becomes for one 'side' to win. I find it difficult to imagine how this could change without significant reform.

(For comparison, while plenty of people here have strong party affiliations over here in Holland, it's not a big deal and quite common even to be a 'floating' voter without too much allegiance to one party.)

Incitatus for consul of the Romans! He's healthy as a horse! ('cause he was a horse.)

Maybe the Romans were on to something ;)

Check out this BBC article about countries without an elected government (the functional ones rely on the civil service):


Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact