Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think that is how his supporters will see things. A lot of them already accepted the "Wall" as a purely symbolic concept, not a practical project.
"So why did you vote for this guy?"
"Well, he wants to build a symbolic wall."
"You mean Trump promised you nothing, and yet you still voted for him."
"But it's a symbolic nothing!"
And this, kids, is why the republican party is a dysfunctional mess. Try to do better in 2020.
A majority of the wall is actually made from tin siding. With a pair of tin snips you can cut a whole in it larger enough to crawl through in under two minutes.
I don't support a physical wall (in most areas), as I see it as a colossal waste of money. However, increased use of hidden infrared cameras, motion sensors, and physical patrols is something that is needed. Also leadership that DOESN'T actively ignore private call-ins about border crossings. Many of those Minutemen border watchers seem racist, but that doesn't make their reports false and they are free sets of eyes.
I don't think that is how his supporters will see things. A lot of them already accepted the "Wall" as a purely symbolic concept, not a practical project.
As someone who is surrounded by Trump supporters daily, they don't think anything symbolic about it. They want a literal wall (or maybe Trump supporters are just crazier in PA).
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think that is how his supporters will see things. A lot of them already accepted the "Wall" as a purely symbolic concept, not a practical project.
"So why did you vote for this guy?"
"Well, he wants to build a symbolic wall."
"You mean Trump promised you nothing, and yet you still voted for him."
"But it's a symbolic nothing!"
And this, kids, is why the republican party is a dysfunctional mess. Try to do better in 2020.
Terry Pratchett wrote something which came to mind in Diggers:
Spoiler:
Nisodemus was explaining his plan. As he listened, Dorcas's mouth slowly dropped open.
It was magnificent in its way, that plan. It was like a machine where every single part was perfectly made, but had been put together by a one-handed nome in the dark. It was crammed full of good ideas which you couldn't sensibly argue with, but they had been turned upside down. The trouble was, they were still ones you couldn't sensibly argue with, because the basically good idea was still in there somewhere.
Nisodemus wanted to rebuild the Store.
The nomes stood in horrified admiration as the Stationeri explained that, yes, Abbot Gurder bad been right, when they left the Store they had taken Arnold Bros. (est. 1905) with them inside their heads. And, if they could show him that they really cared about the Store, he would come out again and put a stop to all these problems and reestablish the Store here, in this green unpleasant land.
That was how it all arrived in Dorcas's head, anyway. He'd long ago decided that if you spent all your time listening to what people actually said you'd never have time to work out what they meant.
But it wouldn't mean building the whole Store, said Nisodemus, his eyes shining like two bright black marbles. They could change the quarry in other ways. Go back to living in proper Departments instead of any old how all over the place. Put up some signs. Get back to the Good Old Ways. Make Arnold Bros. (est. 1905) feel at home. Build the Store inside their heads.
Really it seems to describe the workings of the Republican party as a whole, who have spent so long building their own America in their heads in which Obama was the worst person ever (and that Clinton was even worse than him) that they don't know how to get back out into the real world or even that it exists.
I don't think that is how his supporters will see things. A lot of them already accepted the "Wall" as a purely symbolic concept, not a practical project.
As someone who is surrounded by Trump supporters daily, they don't think anything symbolic about it. They want a literal wall (or maybe Trump supporters are just crazier in PA).
They will either get a real fake wall, like his Inauguration Ball Cake, or they will get Trump's finger pointed at someone other than himself to blame for the failure.
I don't think that is how his supporters will see things. A lot of them already accepted the "Wall" as a purely symbolic concept, not a practical project.
As someone who is surrounded by Trump supporters daily, they don't think anything symbolic about it. They want a literal wall (or maybe Trump supporters are just crazier in PA).
I can affirm that it is the same with Trump supporters in suburban Northern Virginia.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If Trump and his supporters want a 2017 version of the Maginot Line, then they should get what they want.
If it places a heavy burden on the shoulders of the American tax payer, then so be it - that's what they voted for.
I hope they have the good grace not to moan if it all goes wrong.
Ah but they also voted for Mexico to pay for it!
This is going to be such a mess. Trump orders up build of wall before any talks with Mexico about the payment Wonder what Trump says when Mexico says "no" and wall is half built
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If Trump and his supporters want a 2017 version of the Maginot Line, then they should get what they want.
If it places a heavy burden on the shoulders of the American tax payer, then so be it - that's what they voted for.
I hope they have the good grace not to moan if it all goes wrong.
Ah but they also voted for Mexico to pay for it!
This is going to be such a mess. Trump orders up build of wall before any talks with Mexico about the payment Wonder what Trump says when Mexico says "no" and wall is half built
It's been a long time since the USA had a good building project.
One of my particular fascinations with Washington DC and it's wide boulevards, is that it looks as though it were designed to be able to allow the government to machine gun protestors from fortified strongpoints.
I suspect Trump's wall may incorporate similar design features.
cuda1179 wrote: I don't support a physical wall (in most areas), as I see it as a colossal waste of money. However, increased use of hidden infrared cameras, motion sensors, and physical patrols is something that is needed.
Surveillance and patrols are the 21st century solution yeah. Trump's wall makes me think he would have better ruling Constantinople back in the day.
But the bigger issue is that fixation on the Mexican border is worrying about an issue that started solving itself about a decade ago. Illegal immigration from Mexico has been declining for ten years, while people voluntarily returning to Mexico has been increasing. The growing area of people in the US without valid visas is Asia, people on student and short term visas who overstay, often by years.
But this is the modern Republican party. Border control became a great rallying cause, so they set themselves to solve it whether it needed solving or not.
Every time I come into this thread, it never fails to astound me as to what's happening to the US.
Government Depts not allowed to provide information, 'alternative facts', disrespectful behaviour infront of a monument to the sacrifice of others in service to the country. Bussing in 'cheerleaders' to clap and cheer his every word.
I keep expecting to see that there is a new head of public relations had been appointed by the name of Delores Umbridge, who has a new quill pen ready for all the journalists to use at the next press conference.
It would all be so laughable is the US didn't have such a large impact on the world.
cuda1179 wrote: I don't support a physical wall (in most areas), as I see it as a colossal waste of money. However, increased use of hidden infrared cameras, motion sensors, and physical patrols is something that is needed.
Surveillance and patrols are the 21st century solution yeah. Trump's wall makes me think he would have better ruling Constantinople back in the day.
But the bigger issue is that fixation on the Mexican border is worrying about an issue that started solving itself about a decade ago. Illegal immigration from Mexico has been declining for ten years, while people voluntarily returning to Mexico has been increasing. The growing area of people in the US without valid visas is Asia, people on student and short term visas who overstay, often by years.
But this is the modern Republican party. Border control became a great rallying cause, so they set themselves to solve it whether it needed solving or not.
Well, the Republicans have turned a blind eye to Asian and eastern European immigration issues for years and only seem to worry about Mexican and Muslim immigration. But totally not racist.
But the bigger issue is that fixation on the Mexican border is worrying about an issue that started solving itself about a decade ago. Illegal immigration from Mexico has been declining for ten years, while people voluntarily returning to Mexico has been increasing.
You're ignoring illegal immigration THROUGH (not from) Mexico.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: True, Congress needs to give the green light to funding, but seeing that it's in the hands of the GOP, I shouldn't think that would be a problem.
Trump can, via shifted DHS funds, "prime the pump" to get the wall projected started. But, yeah... Congress will need to pass a appropriation bill to fund the wall and expansion of Border Security/Border Techs.
Plus, Trump has a few billion stashed away. He could probably build it with his own cash
I have no idea if the US constitution allows a president to fund something with their own money
Nothing stopping him from using us money... but, that's only *if* he has a few billion stashed away.
I've dabbled in media studies over the years, and one of the best lessons I can remember is to look at what the news ISN'T telling you.
Looking at Trump's proposals to vet immigrants from certain nations associated with terrorism, I was reminded of this lesson.
If, say, for example, a country was the source of the bombers that planned and executed the biggest terrorist attack in history on American soil, you would think they would be on Trump's list.
If that same country was funding ISIL, a group that Trump has vowed to wipe out, a reasonable man would assume that the same nation would again be on that list.
I hope I'm not the only person to notice this massive elephant in the room that is shaped like a particular Middle Eastern country
Easy E wrote: Durable medical Equipment? You mean like Diabetes supplies? I heard that was kind of a big deal in the US lately.
Meh, let them die. Just ask Libertarians such as Ron Paul.
My guess is this refers less to diabetes supplies, as the majority of those are expendable (you use a needle once and put it in the sharp container), and more to things such as a C-PAP machine, or something like oxygen tanks and whanot.
If you look again, Diabetes is specifically listed as its own special thing
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: True, Congress needs to give the green light to funding, but seeing that it's in the hands of the GOP, I shouldn't think that would be a problem.
Trump can, via shifted DHS funds, "prime the pump" to get the wall projected started. But, yeah... Congress will need to pass a appropriation bill to fund the wall and expansion of Border Security/Border Techs.
Plus, Trump has a few billion stashed away. He could probably build it with his own cash
I have no idea if the US constitution allows a president to fund something with their own money
Nothing stopping him from using us money... but, that's only *if* he has a few billion stashed away.
So the political support is there, the funding is there, and the will is there.
Let's build that mutha fether!
In 1 - 2 years time, I expect to be reading headlines about illegal immigrants involved in the construction process.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I've dabbled in media studies over the years, and one of the best lessons I can remember is to look at what the news ISN'T telling you.
Looking at Trump's proposals to vet immigrants from certain nations associated with terrorism, I was reminded of this lesson.
If, say, for example, a country was the source of the bombers that planned and executed the biggest terrorist attack in history on American soil, you would think they would be on Trump's list.
If that same country was funding ISIL, a group that Trump has vowed to wipe out, a reasonable man would assume that the same nation would again be on that list.
I hope I'm not the only person to notice this massive elephant in the room that is shaped like a particular Middle Eastern country
How do i say this, you're thinking too deep.
His actions are those of a persons who reads Twitter feed posts and responds. This is not a secret machiavelli, but a reality star.
Not a lot a outrage in here about the amount of executive orders he has been signing.
Odd.
wuestenfux wrote: Trump - doesn't he make already a great job?
The pace is impressive. Not sure whether all decisions made so far are good or not such as the pipeline.
Why is he doing a great job? He has already stopped job growth by freezing federal hiring. His changes to healthcare are going to kill people/ruin peoples lives. Insurance is not required to cover mental health or maternity services? Seriously?
Finally, some common sense (tm) immigration reform. Curious to see what else this entails.
"Trump, who tweeted that a "big day" was planned on national security on Wednesday, is expected to ban for several months the entry of refugees into the United States, except for religious minorities escaping persecution, until more aggressive vetting is in place."
Dreadwinter wrote: Not a lot a outrage in here about the amount of executive orders he has been signing.
Odd.
Which one would you consider an Executive overreach?
Yeah, because that is what we heard from you. Not the amount it had been used, despite us telling you Obama has done nothing extraordinary with the number of orders issued.
Dreadwinter wrote: Not a lot a outrage in here about the amount of executive orders he has been signing.
Odd.
Which one would you consider an Executive overreach?
Yeah, because that is what we heard from you. Not the amount it had been used, despite us telling you Obama has done nothing extraordinary with the number of orders issued.
I argued the opposite bucko... it's *you* who said he wrote fewer EOs over his tenure.
Dreadwinter wrote: Not a lot a outrage in here about the amount of executive orders he has been signing.
Odd.
Which one would you consider an Executive overreach?
Yeah, because that is what we heard from you. Not the amount it had been used, despite us telling you Obama has done nothing extraordinary with the number of orders issued.
I argued the opposite bucko... it's *you* who said he wrote fewer EOs over his tenure.
I argued the context/content of those EOs...
lol, that is one of those "alternative facts" I have been hearing about lately.
Anyways, I assume you were against Obama's EO to stop DAPL. How do you feel about his EO attempting to push it through?
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is preparing a sweeping executive order that would clear the way for the C.I.A. to reopen overseas “black site” prisons, like those where it detained and tortured terrorism suspects before former President Barack Obama shut them down.
President Trump’s three-page draft order, titled “Detention and Interrogation of Enemy Combatants” and obtained by The New York Times, would also undo many of the other restrictions on handling detainees that Mr. Obama put in place in response to policies of the George W. Bush administration.
If Mr. Trump signs the draft order, he would also revoke Mr. Obama’s directive to give the International Committee of the Red Cross access to all detainees in American custody. That would be another step toward reopening secret prisons outside of the normal wartime rules established by the Geneva Conventions, although statutory obstacles would remain.
And while Mr. Obama tried to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and refused to send new detainees there, the draft order directs the Pentagon to continue using the site “for the detention and trial of newly captured” detainees — including not just more people suspected of being members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban, like the 41 remaining detainees, but also Islamic State detainees. It does not address legal problems that might raise.
The draft order does not direct any immediate reopening of C.I.A. prisons or revival of torture tactics, which are now banned by statute. But it sets up high-level policy reviews to make further recommendations in both areas to Mr. Trump, who vowed during the campaign to bring back waterboarding and a “hell of a lot worse” — not only because “torture works,” but because even “if it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway.”
Elisa Massimino, the director of Human Rights First, denounced the draft order as “flirting with a return to the ‘enhanced interrogation program’ and the environment that gave rise to it.” She noted that numerous retired military leaders have rejected torture as “illegal, immoral and damaging to national security,” and she said that many of Mr. Trump’s cabinet nominees had seemed to share that view in their confirmation testimony.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
“It would be surprising and extremely troubling if the national security cabinet officials were to acquiesce in an order like that after the assurances that they gave in their confirmation hearings,” she said.
A White House spokesman did not immediately respond to an email inquiring about the draft order, including when Mr. Trump may intend to sign it. But the order was accompanied by a one-page statement that criticized the Obama administration for having “refrained from exercising certain authorities” about detainees it said were critical to defending the country from “radical Islamism.”
Specifically, the draft order would revoke two executive orders about detainees that Mr. Obama issued in January 2009, shortly after his inauguration. One was Mr. Obama’s directive to close the Guantánamo prison and the other was his directive to end C.I.A. prisons, grant Red Cross access to all detainees and limit interrogators to the Army Field Manual techniques.
In their place, Mr. Trump’s draft order would resurrect a 2007 executive order issued by President Bush. It responded to a 2006 Supreme Court ruling about the Geneva Conventions that had put C.I.A. interrogators at risk of prosecution for war crimes, leading to a temporary halt of the agency’s “enhanced” interrogations program.
Mr. Bush’s 2007 order enabled the agency to resume a form of the program by specifically listing what sorts of prisoner abuses counted as war crimes. That made it safe for interrogators to use other tactics, like extended sleep deprivation, that were not on the list. Mr. Obama revoked that order as part of his 2009 overhaul of detention legal policy.
One of the Obama orders Mr. Trump’s draft order would revoke also limited interrogators to using techniques listed in the Army Field Manual. But in 2015, Congress enacted a statute locking down that rule as a matter of law, as well as a requirement to let the Red Cross visit detainees. Those limits would remain in place for the time being.
Still, the draft order says high-level Trump administration officials should conduct several reviews and make recommendations to Mr. Trump. One was whether to change the field manual, to the extent permitted by law. Another was “whether to reinitiate a program of interrogation of high-value alien terrorists to be operated outside the United States” by the C.I.A., including any “legislative proposals” necessary to permit the resumption of such a program.
It was not clear whether the C.I.A. would be enthusiastic about resuming a role in detaining and interrogating terrorism suspects after its scorching experience over the past decade. In written answers to questions by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. Trump’s C.I.A. director, Mike Pompeo, said he would review whether a rewrite of the field manual was needed and left the door open to seeking a change in the law “if experts believed current law was an impediment to gathering vital intelligence to protect the country.”
While Mr. Trump’s order says no detainee should be tortured or otherwise subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment “as prescribed by U.S. law,” it makes no mention of international law commitments binding the United States to adhere to humane standards even if Congress were to relax domestic legal limits on interrogations, such as the Convention Against Torture or the Geneva Conventions.
Another core national security legal principle for Mr. Obama was to use civilian courts, not military commissions, whenever possible in terrorism cases — and to exclusively use civilian law enforcement agencies and procedures, not the military, to handle cases arising on domestic soil. The draft order also signals that the Trump administration may shift that approach as well.
In 2012, after Congress enacted a statute mandating that the military initially take custody of all foreign Qaeda suspects, Mr. Obama issued a directive that pre-emptively waived that rule for most domestic circumstances, such as if the F.B.I. had arrested the suspect and was already in the process of an interrogation.
But Mr. Trump’s draft order calls for the attorney general, in consultation with other national-security officials, to review that directive and recommend modifications to it within 120 days.
Many Republicans — including Senator Jeff Sessions, Mr. Trump’s attorney general nominee — criticized the Obama administration’s approach as weak, even though the civilian court system has regularly convicted terrorists at trial while the military commissions system has proved to be dysfunctional. During the campaign, Mr. Trump said he would prefer to prosecute terrorism suspects at Guantánamo — including American citizens, although the law currently limits the commissions system to foreign defendants.
Against that backdrop, Mr. Trump’s draft order would direct Defense Secretary James N. Mattis, along with the attorney general and the director of national intelligence, to “review the military commissions system and recommend to the president how best to employ the system going forward to provide for the swift and just trial and punishment of unlawful enemy combatants detained in the armed conflict with violent Islamist extremists.”
Tom Malinowski, who was assistant secretary of state for human rights in the Obama administration, said the draft order showed that everyone who thought the office of the presidency or the advice of cabinet secretaries like Mr. Mattis would temper Mr. Trump “is being shown wrong again.”
“He’ll listen to his worst instincts over his best advisers unless restrained by law,” Mr. Malinowski said.
CptJake wrote: Freezing Fed hiring is stopping job growth?
Okay. Guess we were broken anyway if we relied on the growth of the Federal Gov't for job growth.
We didn't rely on growth of the federal gov't for job growth. Aren't you always complaining about people putting words in your mouth?
You're the guy who stated:
He has already stopped job growth by freezing federal hiring.
How do I read that without understanding freezing fed hiring = stopping job growth?
And no, I'm not "always complaining about people putting words" in my mouth.
I thought you would be able to understand that stopping job growth in one area is a major hit to overall job growth. I assumed you understood that there were other areas where jobs were created and that since I did not refer to it as overall job growth, you would not associate it with the entire economy..
That was my fault. I put a lot of faith in the reader.
Dreadwinter wrote: Not a lot a outrage in here about the amount of executive orders he has been signing.
Odd.
Which one would you consider an Executive overreach?
Yeah, because that is what we heard from you. Not the amount it had been used, despite us telling you Obama has done nothing extraordinary with the number of orders issued.
I argued the opposite bucko... it's *you* who said he wrote fewer EOs over his tenure.
I argued the context/content of those EOs...
lol, that is one of those "alternative facts" I have been hearing about lately.
Anyways, I assume you were against Obama's EO to stop DAPL. How do you feel about his EO attempting to push it through?
The Keystone project?
After multitudes of surveys by the EPA, Corps of Engineer (etc..) and Congressional bills actually passed... I'm okay with Trumpesto giving the greenlight for the project to proceed.
CptJake wrote: Freezing Fed hiring is stopping job growth?
Okay. Guess we were broken anyway if we relied on the growth of the Federal Gov't for job growth.
We didn't rely on growth of the federal gov't for job growth. Aren't you always complaining about people putting words in your mouth?
You're the guy who stated:
He has already stopped job growth by freezing federal hiring.
How do I read that without understanding freezing fed hiring = stopping job growth?
And no, I'm not "always complaining about people putting words" in my mouth.
I thought you would be able to understand that stopping job growth in one area is a major hit to overall job growth. I assumed you understood that there were other areas where jobs were created and that since I did not refer to it as overall job growth, you would not associate it with the entire economy..
That was my fault. I put a lot of faith in the reader.
So now you are still of the belief that stopping job growth in the Fed gov't is a major hit to overall job growth, and according to your post in this case it is enough of a hit that it 'stopped job growth'. So my reply "if we relied on the growth of the Fed gov't for job growth we were broken' still stands. I'm not misunderstanding a damned thing you typed. Either the freeze stopped job growth, or it did not. Which is it? If you now want to move the goal posts to "I meant it SLOWED job growth', that is fine. My next question is How Much?
Easy E wrote: Durable medical Equipment? You mean like Diabetes supplies? I heard that was kind of a big deal in the US lately.
Meh, let them die. Just ask Libertarians such as Ron Paul.
My guess is this refers less to diabetes supplies, as the majority of those are expendable (you use a needle once and put it in the sharp container), and more to things such as a C-PAP machine, or something like oxygen tanks and whanot.
If you look again, Diabetes is specifically listed as its own special thing
Unless you are a Type I (Also called Juvenile Diabetes) on an insulin pump. That is DME (Durable medical Equipment) as is testers and other newer, better technology where the names escape me at the moment. Either way they improve/save lives and cost a ton of money. I wonder if those are exempted too.
CptJake wrote: Freezing Fed hiring is stopping job growth?
Okay. Guess we were broken anyway if we relied on the growth of the Federal Gov't for job growth.
We didn't rely on growth of the federal gov't for job growth. Aren't you always complaining about people putting words in your mouth?
You're the guy who stated:
He has already stopped job growth by freezing federal hiring.
How do I read that without understanding freezing fed hiring = stopping job growth?
And no, I'm not "always complaining about people putting words" in my mouth.
I thought you would be able to understand that stopping job growth in one area is a major hit to overall job growth. I assumed you understood that there were other areas where jobs were created and that since I did not refer to it as overall job growth, you would not associate it with the entire economy..
That was my fault. I put a lot of faith in the reader.
So now you are still of the belief that stopping job growth in the Fed gov't is a major hit to overall job growth, and according to your post in this case it is enough of a hit that it 'stopped job growth'. So my reply "if we relied on the growth of the Fed gov't for job growth we were broken' still stands. I'm not misunderstanding a damned thing you typed. Either the freeze stopped job growth, or it did not. Which is it? If you now want to move the goal posts to "I meant it SLOWED job growth', that is fine. My next question is How Much?
You are still on this 'stopped job growth' kick, even though I went back and I explained what I meant. So now you are ignoring what I said in order to continue this. Which is fine, it explains a lot to me.
It is not moving the goal posts when one assumes that a person is capable of understanding that the entire nations job growth is not dependent on federal job growth. But it is clear you really really want to argue about this for some reason. Which again, is fine. It just makes zero sense. You are attempting one of those "HA I GOTCHA" arguments and it is kind of amusing.
If you are going to continue using the same argument no matter what I do to fix what was said, there is no point in your next question. Because it will all come down to "lol 'stopped job growth'" which is not what I said, but you seem to think it was implied.
"Trump, who tweeted that a "big day" was planned on national security on Wednesday, is expected to ban for several months the entry of refugees into the United States, except for religious minorities escaping persecution, until more aggressive vetting is in place."
Hmmm, I wonder what this could mean.
It likely means that if you're Christian he'll let you in, but if you're not he'll leave you there to die.
If it places a heavy burden on the shoulders of the American tax payer, then so be it - that's what they voted for.
What they voted for was a pipe dream. What they'll get is a crushing dose of reality that I assume they will ignore because why stop now?
The promise to build a wall was of course never understood as literal but as a promise to be extra racist against latinos.
Funny cause I was at work for about 7 or so hours, and during lunch there were three guys talking about how they hoped the Wall would get built soon (though I suspect what you say is also true to some).
Dreadwinter wrote: "Trump, who tweeted that a "big day" was planned on national security on Wednesday, is expected to ban for several months the entry of refugees into the United States, except for religious minorities escaping persecution, until more aggressive vetting is in place."
Hmmm, I wonder what this could mean.
Christians. Because they matter more than non-christians.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Ugh we're only 6 days in and it seems like the country is already taking a turn for the blegh.
I dont think we can last 4 years of this
Our president is a man of action good sir
Good News: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen
No Saudi Arabia no care - they need to GO
Good news is my two good friends got their parents out of Egypt and one has grandparents in Turkey. They both agree immigration is a huge problem (but their parents view it a bit different).
I've barely researched the pipeline issue for how it's faring now - It was a joke a few months back and needed to get shutdown then. Not sure if much changed.
Rosebuddy wrote: The promise to build a wall was of course never understood as literal but as a promise to be extra racist against latinos.
Too bad he was literal with it. He is honest in that at least he's doing precisely what he says. He might be lying out of ignorance effect(he won't be bringing jobs back because that's not possible. Too much automation) but actions? "I build wall". He builds wall. "I'm going to repel ACA". Well there it goes without even replacement in sight.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Ugh we're only 6 days in and it seems like the country is already taking a turn for the blegh.
I dont think we can last 4 years of this
6 days of which first 2 he spent being on a holiday.
Have to give it to Trump. He does put things in motion fast. Too bad all the wrong things...
Our stock market would like to kick you in the financial cojones. It just broke 20,000. How's yours?
Well, yeah. Nobody thought the rich weren't gonna get richer under Trump.
So no difference from the past administration. Got it. Lets burn some Benjamins to light some Churchills boys. Someone break out the Grey Goose. Models and Bottles!
Dreadwinter wrote: Ah yes, the important stuff. People are making money!
Who cares about health, the environment, or women's rights when we have money?
And howabout LONG TERM money. Not much fun making money now if it means making less money in the long run.
Like peeing in pants. Sure it warms for a while but then it gets less pleasant.
US tax payers are in for rude surprise when they realize they have to pay the wall Trump makes. Wonder how many poor/mid class person is going to be happy when they realize that money will be taken out of THEIR pocket...
WrentheFaceless wrote: Ugh we're only 6 days in and it seems like the country is already taking a turn for the blegh.
I dont think we can last 4 years of this
6 days of which first 2 he spent being on a holiday.
Have to give it to Trump. He does put things in motion fast. Too bad all the wrong things...
Our stock market would like to kick you in the financial cojones. It just broke 20,000. How's yours?
Well, yeah. Nobody thought the rich weren't gonna get richer under Trump.
So no difference from the past administration. Got it. Lets burn some Benjamins to light some Churchills boys. Someone break out the Grey Goose. Models and Bottles!
FRENCH vodka?!
I'd advise you turn yourself into the Trumpstapo for patriotic re-education.
Dreadwinter wrote: Ah yes, the important stuff. People are making money!
Who cares about health, the environment, or women's rights when we have money?
And howabout LONG TERM money. Not much fun making money now if it means making less money in the long run.
Like peeing in pants. Sure it warms for a while but then it gets less pleasant.
MAKE MONEY NOW BECAUSE TOMORROW WE DIE! MODELS AND BOTTLES! MODELS AND BOTTLES!
Also, looks like Trump got my email about clearing up Illinois for when the Boy goes up there (PhD in #5 program in the USA BABY Models and bottles!! oh wait for him its math and computers!)
Dow Jones jumps 11,000 points during 8 years of Obama: he's horrible for the economy.
Dow Jones jumps 1,000 points: Trump is our economic savior!
How many Middle Class jobs are created for every point the DJ rises? How many points does it take for a coal miner to get back to work? Isn't that what Trump promised?
d-usa wrote: Dow Jones jumps 11,000 points during 8 years of Obama: he's horrible for the economy.
Dow Jones jumps 1,000 points: Trump is our economic savior!
How many Middle Class jobs are created for every point the DJ rises? How many points does it take for a coal miner to get back to work? Isn't that what Trump promised?
One thousand points since won the election. I feel like Trajan after Dacia. Models and Bottles!
Mmm this cold medicine is awesome.
d-usa wrote: Dow Jones jumps 11,000 points during 8 years of Obama: he's horrible for the economy.
Dow Jones jumps 1,000 points: Trump is our economic savior!
How many Middle Class jobs are created for every point the DJ rises? How many points does it take for a coal miner to get back to work? Isn't that what Trump promised?
One thousand points since won the election. I feel like Trajan after Dacia. Models and Bottles!
Mmm this cold medicine is awesome.
d-usa wrote: Dow Jones jumps 11,000 points during 8 years of Obama: he's horrible for the economy.
Dow Jones jumps 1,000 points: Trump is our economic savior!
How many Middle Class jobs are created for every point the DJ rises? How many points does it take for a coal miner to get back to work? Isn't that what Trump promised?
One thousand points since won the election. I feel like Trajan after Dacia. Models and Bottles!
Mmm this cold medicine is awesome.
This explains a lot, Fraz is robotripping.
...indeedeo buddy.... just dont' mix'n match these medicines.
d-usa wrote: Dow Jones jumps 11,000 points during 8 years of Obama: he's horrible for the economy.
Dow Jones jumps 1,000 points: Trump is our economic savior!
How many Middle Class jobs are created for every point the DJ rises? How many points does it take for a coal miner to get back to work? Isn't that what Trump promised?
One thousand points since won the election. I feel like Trajan after Dacia. Models and Bottles!
Mmm this cold medicine is awesome.
Obama got 1000 points in a month.
And I repeat:
How many Middle Class jobs are created for every point the DJ rises? How many points does it take for a coal miner to get back to work? Isn't that what Trump promised?
d-usa wrote: Dow Jones jumps 11,000 points during 8 years of Obama: he's horrible for the economy.
Dow Jones jumps 1,000 points: Trump is our economic savior!
How many Middle Class jobs are created for every point the DJ rises? How many points does it take for a coal miner to get back to work? Isn't that what Trump promised?
One thousand points since won the election. I feel like Trajan after Dacia. Models and Bottles!
Mmm this cold medicine is awesome.
Obama got 1000 points in a month.
And I repeat:
How many Middle Class jobs are created for every point the DJ rises? How many points does it take for a coal miner to get back to work? Isn't that what Trump promised?
eh... I think it's a bit silly to correlate the DJ to number of jobs...
If anything, there were arguments that the DJ would tank if Trumpesto was elected...
Veterans without jobs will also loose access to health insurance, be more likely to seek VA care instead, where there won't be enough people to care for them because there is no federal hiring.
d-usa wrote: Dow Jones jumps 11,000 points during 8 years of Obama: he's horrible for the economy.
Dow Jones jumps 1,000 points: Trump is our economic savior!
How many Middle Class jobs are created for every point the DJ rises? How many points does it take for a coal miner to get back to work? Isn't that what Trump promised?
One thousand points since won the election. I feel like Trajan after Dacia. Models and Bottles!
Mmm this cold medicine is awesome.
Obama got 1000 points in a month.
And I repeat:
How many Middle Class jobs are created for every point the DJ rises? How many points does it take for a coal miner to get back to work? Isn't that what Trump promised?
eh... I think it's a bit silly to correlate the DJ to number of jobs...
If anything, there were arguments that the DJ would tank if Trumpesto was elected...
Did Trump run on raising the DJ, or did he run on jobs?
Veterans without jobs will also loose access to health insurance, be more likely to seek VA care instead, where there won't be enough people to care for them because there is no federal hiring.
d-usa wrote: Dow Jones jumps 11,000 points during 8 years of Obama: he's horrible for the economy.
Dow Jones jumps 1,000 points: Trump is our economic savior!
How many Middle Class jobs are created for every point the DJ rises? How many points does it take for a coal miner to get back to work? Isn't that what Trump promised?
One thousand points since won the election. I feel like Trajan after Dacia. Models and Bottles!
Mmm this cold medicine is awesome.
Obama got 1000 points in a month.
And I repeat:
How many Middle Class jobs are created for every point the DJ rises? How many points does it take for a coal miner to get back to work? Isn't that what Trump promised?
eh... I think it's a bit silly to correlate the DJ to number of jobs...
If anything, there were arguments that the DJ would tank if Trumpesto was elected...
Did Trump run on raising the DJ, or did he run on jobs?
Jobby jobs yo.
'Tis why I think it's silly to assume that correlation.
The stock market ultimately is a poor reflection on actual market health and job growth, as most of the gains are in perceived value rather than actually anything produced, and those gains are largely captured by funds of various sorts and the ultrawealthy, not even the "well off" much less the average person (excepting any investments in things like 401k's that may be investrd in said funds, but that does little for most people's current lives).
So if he ran a campaign of "no more corporate fat cats, more jobs for people", and was elected because people want "no more corporate fat cats, more jobs", then why are people cheering corporate growth when the same corporations were the bad guys a couple months ago?
Says the foreigner who literally doesn't know what he's talking about or ever ever met a Trump supporter.
Trump supporters are dead serious in wanting a wall barrier system.
Preferably with sharks with frigging lazer beams.
Oh sure, his supporters will be happy with a wall. They also won't mind if an actual wall across the entire border of Mexico is never built or paid for by the Mexican state as long as the Trump administration is visibly doing something. Allowing more militias to patrol the border and throwing out suspected immigrants would be fine.
That's why claiming that a wall is obviously absurd in purely practical terms is missing the point. If it can be done, it will be built. But if it can't be done, the existing fences and surveillance systems will simply get expanded.
President Donald Trump has issued an executive order for a wall to be built along the southern US border with Mexico.
He also signed an action to strip funds from US cities that are sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants.
This'll work fine.
Trump has such a great record off paying off debts he incurs.
Oh sure, his supporters will be happy with a wall. They also won't mind if an actual wall across the entire border of Mexico is never built or paid for by the Mexican state as long as the Trump administration is visibly doing something. Allowing more militias to patrol the border and throwing out suspected immigrants would be fine.
It would be an interesting in retrospect, but also horrifying time were we to see a rise in those militias just so Trump could save face. I doubt it though, as things would go rapidly downhill from there. He can thing other ways to sabotage the country.
Yeah, we really shouldn't be looking at the market for determining much of anything right now other than basic fundamentals. Wait five or six years and see where it seems to settle, then reappraise. Also, since people largely attributed Bush for the economic collapse (it wasn't his fault alone) after Obama took office, shouldn't we also applaud Obama for making the economy functioning again as Trump takes office? Thanks Obama! (Not sarcasticly)
President Donald Trump has issued an executive order for a wall to be built along the southern US border with Mexico.
He also signed an action to strip funds from US cities that are sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants.
This'll work fine.
Trump has such a great record off paying off debts he incurs.
Don't mind the wall... the cost is a drop in the bucket really...
What bothers me, is the fact that he's using EO to strip funds from Sanctuaries cities... I don't think that's kosher. I need to be passed in Congress.
President Donald Trump has issued an executive order for a wall to be built along the southern US border with Mexico.
He also signed an action to strip funds from US cities that are sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants.
This'll work fine.
Trump has such a great record off paying off debts he incurs.
Apparently his advisers haven't told him he cant bankrupt himself out of this.
President Donald Trump has issued an executive order for a wall to be built along the southern US border with Mexico.
He also signed an action to strip funds from US cities that are sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants.
This'll work fine.
Trump has such a great record off paying off debts he incurs.
I'm sure the Mexican Cartels will start a massive digging operation to expand their tunnels underneath the border.
Trump is gambling with the house's money now. I'm sure some of the money not going into his own pockets will be used to pay a debt or two.
President Donald Trump has issued an executive order for a wall to be built along the southern US border with Mexico.
He also signed an action to strip funds from US cities that are sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants.
This'll work fine.
Trump has such a great record off paying off debts he incurs.
Don't mind the wall... the cost is a drop in the bucket really...
What bothers me, is the fact that he's using EO to strip funds from Sanctuaries cities... I don't think that's kosher. I need to be passed in Congress.
I don't really care about the physical structure of the wall other than the economic burden, I care about the point behind it. We are the nation that is made up of and enriched by immigrants. That is sort of our "thing". Trump is telling the world our "thing" is no longer our thing. We got ours, feth you. Keep your hands of of "our thing", Mr. Peestain.
$8 billion doesn't seem a drop in the bucket to me, at least. The entire Scotch industry contributed £5 billion to the UK's economy. Scotch is pretty big deal for Scotland and is sold globally. That's only the equivalent of $6 billion or so...
If it places a heavy burden on the shoulders of the American tax payer, then so be it - that's what they voted for.
What they voted for was a pipe dream. What they'll get is a crushing dose of reality that I assume they will ignore because why stop now?
The promise to build a wall was of course never understood as literal but as a promise to be extra racist against latinos.
Says the foreigner who literally doesn't know what he's talking about or ever ever met a Trump supporter.
Trump supporters are dead serious in wanting a wall barrier system.
Preferably with sharks with frigging lazer beams.
Sharks? In the desert?...
Land sharks. Have your never seen the real Jaws 2, Tremors? Kevin Bacon is in it. He doesn't dance. And his last name is bacon.You should watch it. I'm doing it right now, right Frazz?
On topic: I bet Trump is just trying to protect us from the Tremors monsters. He saw them in a film once, they looked real and scary. Give the guy some slack and the benefit of doubt, people. He is sarmt enoght to no better, wright?
A fish becomes the master of its own destiny inside of a robotic fish tank that it controls. The speed and direction of the robot are determined by the position of the fish relative to the middle of its tank, so it changes as the fish swims around in its tank.
sharks in armoured tanks is the inevitable next step.
President Donald Trump has issued an executive order for a wall to be built along the southern US border with Mexico.
He also signed an action to strip funds from US cities that are sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants.
This'll work fine.
Trump has such a great record off paying off debts he incurs.
Don't mind the wall... the cost is a drop in the bucket really...
What bothers me, is the fact that he's using EO to strip funds from Sanctuaries cities... I don't think that's kosher. I need to be passed in Congress.
I don't really care about the physical structure of the wall other than the economic burden, I care about the point behind it. We are the nation that is made up of and enriched by immigrants. That is sort of our "thing". Trump is telling the world our "thing" is no longer our thing. We got ours, feth you. Keep your hands of of "our thing", Mr. Peestain.
A fish becomes the master of its own destiny inside of a robotic fish tank that it controls. The speed and direction of the robot are determined by the position of the fish relative to the middle of its tank, so it changes as the fish swims around in its tank.
sharks in armoured tanks is the inevitable next step.
Not just that but flying sharks. Rocket powered flying sharks with lazer beams. Also drones piloted by angy octopi. Think of the DARPA budget spend on that. We'll be back to 6% annual GDP in no time.
President Donald Trump has issued an executive order for a wall to be built along the southern US border with Mexico.
He also signed an action to strip funds from US cities that are sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants.
This'll work fine.
Trump has such a great record off paying off debts he incurs.
Don't mind the wall... the cost is a drop in the bucket really...
What bothers me, is the fact that he's using EO to strip funds from Sanctuaries cities... I don't think that's kosher. I need to be passed in Congress.
I don't really care about the physical structure of the wall other than the economic burden, I care about the point behind it. We are the nation that is made up of and enriched by immigrants. That is sort of our "thing". Trump is telling the world our "thing" is no longer our thing. We got ours, feth you. Keep your hands of of "our thing", Mr. Peestain.
A fish becomes the master of its own destiny inside of a robotic fish tank that it controls. The speed and direction of the robot are determined by the position of the fish relative to the middle of its tank, so it changes as the fish swims around in its tank.
sharks in armoured tanks is the inevitable next step.
Not just that but flying sharks. Rocket powered flying sharks with lazer beams. Also drones piloted by angy octopi. Think of the DARPA budget spend on that. We'll be back to 6% annual GDP in no time.
You mean tha as in, the immigrants who created this this fine nation were illegal immigrants? The gall. The travesty. The point. If only the Iroquois nation had some fine men behind all of their females...things would have turned out so much differently. If only they had a wall!!!
President Donald Trump has issued an executive order for a wall to be built along the southern US border with Mexico.
He also signed an action to strip funds from US cities that are sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants.
This'll work fine.
Trump has such a great record off paying off debts he incurs.
Don't mind the wall... the cost is a drop in the bucket really...
What bothers me, is the fact that he's using EO to strip funds from Sanctuaries cities... I don't think that's kosher. I need to be passed in Congress.
I don't really care about the physical structure of the wall other than the economic burden, I care about the point behind it. We are the nation that is made up of and enriched by immigrants. That is sort of our "thing". Trump is telling the world our "thing" is no longer our thing. We got ours, feth you. Keep your hands of of "our thing", Mr. Peestain.
A fish becomes the master of its own destiny inside of a robotic fish tank that it controls. The speed and direction of the robot are determined by the position of the fish relative to the middle of its tank, so it changes as the fish swims around in its tank.
sharks in armoured tanks is the inevitable next step.
Not just that but flying sharks. Rocket powered flying sharks with lazer beams. Also drones piloted by angy octopi. Think of the DARPA budget spend on that. We'll be back to 6% annual GDP in no time.
You mean tha as in, the immigrants who created this this fine nation were illegal immigrants? The gall. The travesty. The point.
No they were here legally.
They were only illegal to the natives already here. That didn't turn out so well for them. But at least they have casinos.
Are you kidding here? Trump is seventy. He has not spunk left, just lots of urine, which he uses greatly and amazingly. Did you not look at Melania's face at all? she was so tremendously excited to be there.
President Donald Trump has issued an executive order for a wall to be built along the southern US border with Mexico.
He also signed an action to strip funds from US cities that are sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants.
This'll work fine.
Trump has such a great record off paying off debts he incurs.
Don't mind the wall... the cost is a drop in the bucket really...
What bothers me, is the fact that he's using EO to strip funds from Sanctuaries cities... I don't think that's kosher. I need to be passed in Congress.
I don't really care about the physical structure of the wall other than the economic burden, I care about the point behind it. We are the nation that is made up of and enriched by immigrants. That is sort of our "thing". Trump is telling the world our "thing" is no longer our thing. We got ours, feth you. Keep your hands of of "our thing", Mr. Peestain.
A fish becomes the master of its own destiny inside of a robotic fish tank that it controls. The speed and direction of the robot are determined by the position of the fish relative to the middle of its tank, so it changes as the fish swims around in its tank.
sharks in armoured tanks is the inevitable next step.
Not just that but flying sharks. Rocket powered flying sharks with lazer beams. Also drones piloted by angy octopi. Think of the DARPA budget spend on that. We'll be back to 6% annual GDP in no time.
You mean tha as in, the immigrants who created this this fine nation were illegal immigrants? The gall. The travesty. The point.
No they were here legally.
They were only illegal to the natives already here. That didn't turn out so well for them. But at least they have casinos.
When you sober up, read what you wrote again. Might makes right. I bet you know that we sort of curbed some of our laws from them--see the constitution. So because it ended up with casinos for natives, all is good. Ok, good to know. Thanks.
Might makes right? Well yea, but thats not related to my post.
Legal immigrants built this country, yes indeed. People who attempt to conflate illegal and legal immigration have their own agendas and none of them are in the interest of the US or the middle class.
And because of your insolence I've decided we need to counteract Australia's dominance in killer drop bears. IN an enlightened Trump administration, we will develop drop jackalopes!
Australia you're on the list! Each country conquered is only going to give us about ten years of sugar high. So after Canada, Mexico, Scotland, and Tahiti, look out!
Also Greenland's sure got a purty mouth. All your craggy lands are belong to us!
You people realize the last time the US and Russia got together well, we conquered..everybody right... even Picadilly Circus fell to our flyboys. muahahah
The wall is getting built...by Mexican cement and construction companies because they're the closest.
I look forward to the non - Union, Mexican equivalent of Ronald Reagen with a rallying cry of tear down this wall!
I love America. really, really really love it. Seriously, I mean it.
Since Jan 20th, I haven't laughed this hard in months.
A toupee in the White House. Buy American, but the supporters hats were made in China. Alternative facts. Sean Spicer looking like Herman Munster's stunt man.
and now this wall.
If we get 4 more years of this, I will die from cracked ribs puncturing my vital organs.
I appreciate that many of my fellow dakka members won't have a good time under Trump. I hope the next 4 years goes well for you guys. Best of luck.
But to this non-American neutral observor, once again the USA has managed to kill satire stone dead.
If you write comedy, how the hell can you compete with this? You can't because reality is funnier.
PS, if we in Scotland block another Trump golf course, I may not be laughing much more, instead I may find myself fighting off the US Marince Corp!
Compel wrote: $8 billion doesn't seem a drop in the bucket to me, at least. The entire Scotch industry contributed £5 billion to the UK's economy. Scotch is pretty big deal for Scotland and is sold globally. That's only the equivalent of $6 billion or so...
Other estimates I have seen have ranged from 12 to 25 billions...
That is money that could be used for lot more useful things. But nope. Wasted to boost Trump's ego instead.
Frazzled wrote: Might makes right? Well yea, but thats not related to my post.
Legal immigrants built this country, yes indeed. People who attempt to conflate illegal and legal immigration have their own agendas and none of them are in the interest of the US or the middle class.
So the people who built this country (European immigrants) had legal jurisdiction to do so? what legal statutes were they following? What legal terms by which the League of Nations (in the east, don't get me started on the Sioux or Cherokee) were the "legal" immigrants following? What legal document are you getting your facts from? Or are they "alternate facts" in which case, we can just shut this down right here and now?
And let the record show that *burb and *blarble are not actual responses, despite what your president might tweet. Go to sleep, sweet prince, and talk to us tomorrow.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I agree with frazzled. Legal immigrants are fine, illegal are not.
But insisted for DacA kids
But then one has to keep in mind this build has nothing to do with stopping illegal immigrants and all about boosting Trump's ego.
If you want to prevent illegal immigration(funny concept since US is built from such in a first place) there are actually effective ways to spend the 8-25 billion dollars.
But they wouldn't boost Trump's ego so much so he goes for the ego booster. Everything he does are for two purposes and two purposes only: Boost his ego and boost his wealth.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I agree with frazzled. Legal immigrants are fine, illegal are not.
But insisted for DacA kids
Good to know, are you "legal"?m I say you are not, be gone with you
I'm legal yes, I was born here.
Are you white? Are you male? Do you have skin disease? Do you freak with others of your sex? If yes, press button one. If no, presss button two. If you pressed button one, you are an exceptional human. Proceed. Do you have a heritage of heart problems, do you smoke? Do you dislike people with left handedness? If so, please proceed.
President Donald Trump has issued an executive order for a wall to be built along the southern US border with Mexico.
He also signed an action to strip funds from US cities that are sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants.
This'll work fine.
Trump has such a great record off paying off debts he incurs.
I'm sure the Mexican Cartels will start a massive digging operation to expand their tunnels underneath the border.
Trump is gambling with the house's money now. I'm sure some of the money not going into his own pockets will be used to pay a debt or two.
Most likely in terms of the cartels expanding their efforts a bit more. It is relatively successful nothing he does will stop the drugs coming int our country as long as their is a demand for it here in the US. We are after all the cartel's biggest customer!
Removing those conditions from being required to be covered doesn't mean no health insurance plans will include them it just means a base plan of the federal minimum requirements wouldn't have them. The less coverage in the base plan the lower the premiums and the easier it is for young healthy single people to buy health insurance and offset the cost of insuring people that need more coverage such as people with preexisting conditions. What exactly should be covered in a Federally required minimum health insurance policy is debatable but that is a separate issue from the fact that two primary goals of the ACA were to get more people buying health insurance and more young healthy people buying health insurance. Young healthy people need less coverage, we need more young healthy people to buy health insurance and lower premiums make health insurance more appealing and affordable for young healthy people. This isn't an inherently bad list depending on how Congress and the health insurance companies deal with it. Concern is understandable but its still too early to know what the consequences will be.
Yup, insurers will drop them from their basic packages (the price won't change though) and then if you're a woman who wants to have a baby you'll need to buy their "deluxe" package at greater cost.
lonestarr777 wrote: You live in a magical fething world Prestor if you think the insurance companies aren't gonna drop these like hot iron to save a few bucks.
The consequences are the Skrelis of America are gonna see dollar signs while people die.
Right... it was so horrible prior to the ACA's passage, that people were dying on the street left and right...
Therefore, when Obama delayed the impact of the ACA till after the 2012 election... he was willing to let people die for political expediency.
Still wanna argue that?
Or... maybe, the actual market will dictate what people want included in their plans...
To be fair, it's hard to see what use medical cover would be if it doesn't even include Emergency Services?
If you're young, fit and healthy, I can't see the point of buying this. If you don't attract the young fit and healthy, there's not much point in having a policy like this?
They won't drop them because people will pay for them.
The insurance companies will shave basic plans down and knock off a few bucks, then charge premiums to add stuff back in that used to be standard and we all end up paying more than we did before for the same services.
Some of the things on that list actually make sense to remove from basic insurance plans but some just don't. You should always be entitled to a second opinion. Who in their right mind after the past ten years and a half dozen shootings by the mentally handicapped think that we need less mental health care in this country? And why the feth shouldn't outpatient be part of basic insurance? Several of those points seem straight up targeted at punishing women for being women. Insurance that can't be used to pay for cancer is basically worthless because cancer can literally appear anywhere. Especially with no provisions for pre-existing conditions or protection from being dropped, this new health policy is looking like a green light to tell people to feth off and die.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
r_squared wrote: To be fair, it's hard to see what use medical cover would be if it doesn't even include Emergency Services?
Hey man. This is Trump's America now. Poor people should just go die in the dirty rivers and smog filled air
r_squared wrote: To be fair, it's hard to see what use medical cover would be if it doesn't even include Emergency Services?
If you're young, fit and healthy, I can't see the point of buying this. If you don't attract the young fit and healthy, there's not much point in having a policy like this?
I'm guessing I'm missing something?
It's risk management for the everyone, especially the young folks...
So, a low premium insurance plan may have high deductibles and co-pays (because young'uns use it less), however, it's a good protection against massive debts if you get hit by a bus and face lengthy recovery.
Gee, I dunno maybe it's almost like I haven't bought into years upon years of lies about how voting against my best interest is in my best interest, weird.
Maybe it's cause I have family and friends who are essentially living paycheck to paycheck already because of the cost of their medicine and medical equipment.
Or that you know I didn't pretend to be Never Trump so people didn't put me on ignore months ago but now that he's in power and it's conveniently not my fault I can freely drink my kool-aid in front of everyone!
Gee, I mean it could be any of these things that make me realize this is all very damn bad.
LordofHats wrote: They won't drop them because people will pay for them.
The insurance companies will shave basic plans down and knock off a few bucks, then charge premiums to add stuff back in that used to be standard and we all end up paying more than we did before for the same services.
Some of the things on that list actually make sense to remove from basic insurance plans but some just don't. You should always be entitled to a second opinion. Who in their right mind after the past ten years and a half dozen shootings by the mentally handicapped think that we need less mental health care in this country? And why the feth shouldn't outpatient be part of basic insurance? Several of those points seem straight up targeted at punishing women for being women. Insurance that can't be used to pay for cancer is basically worthless because cancer can literally appear anywhere.
Pre-ACA had separate, distinct plans just for women... yaknow?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lonestarr777 wrote: Gee, I dunno maybe it's almost like I haven't bought into years upon years of lies about how voting against my best interest is in my best interest, weird.
Maybe it's cause I have family and friends who are essentially living paycheck to paycheck already because of the cost of their medicine and medical equipment.
Or that you know I didn't pretend to be Never Trump so people didn't put me on ignore months ago but now that he's in power and it's conveniently not my fault I can freely drink my kool-aid in front of everyone!
Gee, I mean it could be any of these things that make me realize this is all very damn bad.
Sarcasm noted... and ignored.
The ACA isn't the ONLY way to achieve a " better system ". This is a trap you're going to find yourself... if you like the ACA, and think that repealing it is the worst thing ever, then post-ACA will never be good enough...
LordofHats wrote: They won't drop them because people will pay for them.
The insurance companies will shave basic plans down and knock off a few bucks, then charge premiums to add stuff back in that used to be standard and we all end up paying more than we did before for the same services.
Some of the things on that list actually make sense to remove from basic insurance plans but some just don't. You should always be entitled to a second opinion. Who in their right mind after the past ten years and a half dozen shootings by the mentally handicapped think that we need less mental health care in this country? And why the feth shouldn't outpatient be part of basic insurance? Several of those points seem straight up targeted at punishing women for being women. Insurance that can't be used to pay for cancer is basically worthless because cancer can literally appear anywhere.
Pre-ACA had separate, distinct plans just for women... yaknow?
LordofHats wrote: They won't drop them because people will pay for them.
The insurance companies will shave basic plans down and knock off a few bucks, then charge premiums to add stuff back in that used to be standard and we all end up paying more than we did before for the same services.
Some of the things on that list actually make sense to remove from basic insurance plans but some just don't. You should always be entitled to a second opinion. Who in their right mind after the past ten years and a half dozen shootings by the mentally handicapped think that we need less mental health care in this country? And why the feth shouldn't outpatient be part of basic insurance? Several of those points seem straight up targeted at punishing women for being women. Insurance that can't be used to pay for cancer is basically worthless because cancer can literally appear anywhere.
Pre-ACA had separate, distinct plans just for women... yaknow?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lonestarr777 wrote: Gee, I dunno maybe it's almost like I haven't bought into years upon years of lies about how voting against my best interest is in my best interest, weird.
Maybe it's cause I have family and friends who are essentially living paycheck to paycheck already because of the cost of their medicine and medical equipment.
Or that you know I didn't pretend to be Never Trump so people didn't put me on ignore months ago but now that he's in power and it's conveniently not my fault I can freely drink my kool-aid in front of everyone!
Gee, I mean it could be any of these things that make me realize this is all very damn bad.
Sarcasm noted... and ignored.
The ACA isn't the ONLY way to achieve a " better system ". This is a trap you're going to find yourself... if you like the ACA, and think that repealing it is the worst thing ever, then post-ACA will never be good enough...
If you like the old way and think that repealing the ACA is the best thing ever, then the ACA will never be good enough...
LordofHats wrote: They won't drop them because people will pay for them.
The insurance companies will shave basic plans down and knock off a few bucks, then charge premiums to add stuff back in that used to be standard and we all end up paying more than we did before for the same services.
Some of the things on that list actually make sense to remove from basic insurance plans but some just don't. You should always be entitled to a second opinion. Who in their right mind after the past ten years and a half dozen shootings by the mentally handicapped think that we need less mental health care in this country? And why the feth shouldn't outpatient be part of basic insurance? Several of those points seem straight up targeted at punishing women for being women. Insurance that can't be used to pay for cancer is basically worthless because cancer can literally appear anywhere.
Pre-ACA had separate, distinct plans just for women... yaknow?
And how much more did they have to pay?
Single women v. Single men?
They pay more (not alot more, but it's distinctive)... since they use the services more than men.
I would like to say I am claiming this as a badge of honor that Whembly put me on ignore, for the record, proud of that.
As for this whole mess, you know I gotta say some folks are just lucky. I mean between my dads cancer and my best friends diabetes and my good buddys need for anti-psychotics this is just a fething nightmare looking them in the face if these companies decide to start dropping things.
So hey I'm greatful that for so many people on DakkaDakka who insist that this is no big deal, no seriously, glad everyone and everything in your life is just fine.
But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining when you're just blindly believing this isn't gonna hurt people...
Gordon Shumway wrote: You're right, whem, it isn't like we haven't been waiting for years for a replacement idea or anything.
The ideas are there Gordy... but, since they don't support your positions, you'll reject the premise.
That way, you can maintain that the GOP don't have a plan at all...
The GOP has talked about an idea/plan since the passage of the ACA.
It's telling that the GOP Congress has been 'pumping the breaks' in the repeal process because they want to deliberate over this... rather than, repeal this fether and 'damn the torpedoes!'. But, hey... they're still deplorable so I'm not holding my breath for you give them that credit...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lonestarr777 wrote: I would like to say I am claiming this as a badge of honor that Whembly put me on ignore, for the record, proud of that.
I don't have you on ignore... I can see your post unspoilered just fine...
As for this whole mess, you know I gotta say some folks are just lucky. I mean between my dads cancer and my best friends diabetes and my good buddys need for anti-psychotics this is just a fething nightmare looking them in the face if these companies decide to start dropping things.
So hey I'm greatful that for so many people on DakkaDakka who insist that this is no big deal, no seriously, glad everyone and everything in your life is just fine.
But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining when you're just blindly believing this isn't gonna hurt people...
I get that there's uncertainty as to what the future will look like post-ACA repeal... and there's nothing anyone can say to allieviate that until we know more on what will transpire.
But, I'm telling you, the ACA was/is a major boondoggle for the insurance companies and massively regulates the industry to the point that, it might as well be single payer.
Consider this... the opponents of the ACA are simply saying "we can do better". Isn't that a worthy question to ask?
Are they saying "we can do better"? So far they are saying "this is crap" and wanting it gone. If they can do better, let them show us how they can do better before taking something away that many people desperately depend on.
I am looking at fossil fuels and I think "we can do better" but I am not willing to completely stop using fossil fuels and I assume you would agree with that. That is because we have no better solution currently. The same goes for the ACA. There is currently no better solution on the table.
Yeah, given pretty much every historical precedent with health insurance, getting coverage for any of those things will almost certainly cost more than what people are paying now.
With no alternative or replacement proposal in place (or even on the horizon) to judge, I'd be extremely worried about coverage for those items.
As for "can we do better", yes, but thats not really whats going on here, and never really was. It's about squeezing more $ out of consumers for some and not having to pay for "those people" (defined many different ways) for others. It's not about improving healthcare. It's money and culture wars. If it were about healthcare and improvement, we wouldnt be seeing basic.plans drop huge numbers of often critical items or the frothing madness surrounding the repeal of "Obamacare", we'd be looking at updating or modifying it, not repealing it. It's politics as usual, turned up to 11.
Dreadwinter wrote: Are they saying "we can do better"? So far they are saying "this is crap" and wanting it gone. If they can do better, let them show us how they can do better before taking something away that many people desperately depend on.
I am looking at fossil fuels and I think "we can do better" but I am not willing to completely stop using fossil fuels and I assume you would agree with that. That is because we have no better solution currently. The same goes for the ACA. There is currently no better solution on the table.
It's the kitchen sink mentality.
We need to keep using our fossil fuels, but at the same time research/develop alternative resources.
Much in the same with for Healthcare... if we're not willing to go NHS/single-payer... then the 'kitchen sink' approach shouldn't be disagreeable. If one or more aspect isn't working well (as in the ACA), let's try something different WHILE ensure everyone has access at affordable manner.
The ACA tried to take a broad brush, change the entire industry (ie, must have x, y, z on your plans, if not drop it) and deal with the consequences....
Alrighty so Trump has successfully done the following:
Spoiler:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
Oh I heard we are also pulling out of the UN as well!
You do realize that those characteristics are general enough that most of them can be checked off for every president we've had in my lifetime from Carter through Obama, right?
Go for it then and dont forget citations
Here we go:
Obama
1.Nationalism
The 2008 presidential campaign was full of it and it continued during his administration. Iconic red white and blue portraits of Obama, the slogan Yes we can, extorting the public to unite and help better America by electing Obama, campaign rhetoric such as "we are the ones we've been waiting for" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/us/politics/05text-obama.html
14. Fraudulent Elections
Giving Obama a pass on this too
Ok, that's 9/14 solid check marks for Obama is a dictator using the way too general checklist in the article posted by Asherian Command. I think I've proven my argument that the check list is lousy.
Several of those are correlation but not causation, Prestor. Just because, say, labor unions shrunk does not mean Obama had anything to do with it. He could even have been trying to work against a given trend despite it happening. I do agree that the list is very flexible and therefore requires a degree of common sense to apply correctly. I don't believe all of them apply to Trump (yet) in terms of actual actions taken.
Alrighty so Trump has successfully done the following:
Spoiler:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
Oh I heard we are also pulling out of the UN as well!
You do realize that those characteristics are general enough that most of them can be checked off for every president we've had in my lifetime from Carter through Obama, right?
Go for it then and dont forget citations
Here we go:
Obama
1.Nationalism
The 2008 presidential campaign was full of it and it continued during his administration. Iconic red white and blue portraits of Obama, the slogan Yes we can, extorting the public to unite and help better America by electing Obama, campaign rhetoric such as "we are the ones we've been waiting for" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/us/politics/05text-obama.html
14. Fraudulent Elections
Giving Obama a pass on this too
Ok, that's 9/14 solid check marks for Obama is a dictator using the way too general checklist in the article posted by Asherian Command. I think I've proven my argument that the check list is lousy.
So wait, is Obama a dictator? I didn't think dictators gave up power. Last I checked we had a new punching bag in the seat.
@whembly: which on of their ideas did they vote on in the House in the last six years in order to fix the problem? Or did they just vote redundantly in order to do a whole repeal when thy knew it wouldn't pass in order to cover their asses?
Gordon Shumway wrote: So wait, is Obama a dictator? I didn't think dictators gave up power. Last I checked we had a new punching bag in the seat.
The argument was that the list of Dictator characteristics were so general as to be applied to any president from Carter through Obama. While that statement may have been a bit of hyperbole, the core of the idea is that each trait is very flexible and its easy to make any president fit into them. Therefore, it is an unsuitable metric by which to judge the dictator-ness of Trump. Personally I think that list of traits is overly general to define someone but its still far from meaningless. That Trump fits so many of those so readily (and so soon) definitely says a great deal about him.
Gordon Shumway wrote: So wait, is Obama a dictator? I didn't think dictators gave up power. Last I checked we had a new punching bag in the seat.
The argument was that the list of Dictator characteristics were so general as to be applied to any president from Carter through Obama. While that statement may have been a bit of hyperbole, the core of the idea is that each trait is very flexible and its easy to make any president fit into them. Therefore, it is an unsuitable metric by which to judge the dictator-ness of Trump. Personally I think that list of traits is overly general to define someone but its still far from meaningless. That Trump fits so many of those so readily (and so soon) definitely says a great deal about him.
Meh, Trump isn't a dictator. Dictators have a semblance of power. Trump has a pen and a camera. Yeah, he can do a lot of damage with them, but unless congress goes along with his stupid ideas, and cedes all power to him, he aint much of a dictator. In light of the GOP's reluctance to point out how stupid their standard bearer is, however, he can act as a de facto dictator.
Trump isn't a dictator so much as he appears to be taking a stab at being a tyrant. We shall see how much that holds up once he gets bored of legislating from the oval office or rather once he gets bored of signing everything in front of him.
He loves attention. Problem is for him, every executive order he signs brings him more ridicule. His base is mostly content with sitting on their laurels and no longer actually paying attention to what he is doing (already) so they are not there to give him wings lol.
Consider this... the opponents of the ACA are simply saying "we can do better". Isn't that a worthy question to ask?
From what I have read about the US healthcare system, no. There's nothing to see there. The ACA was far away from a sane/useful/affordable system (meaning some version of a single payer system) and Republican didn't even want that (which was, if I remember correctly, one of the Democrats early ideas). Their options will be even worse because they decried anything single payer-ish either as socialism or as illegal taxes/theft. The fact is ACA saves lives, 43000 people don't die annually due to medical problems. Sure it could be that this was caused by Obama's magic touch but my guess is that this was simply the result of more people having health insurance (even if the system isn't that great).
They will, of course, talk about a better system and spin it till they're dizzy but there's nothing good to see. They are a bit like the Brexit crowd. So eager to get to the finish line (eliminate the ACA) that the didn't even think about what to do next. They had time since the ACA was introduced (actually even before that) to propose something and they have, at best, Ryan's disaster idea but overall there's just nothing useful. What have they been doing all these years?
Texas' pregnancy/maternity death rate is moving in the direction of a third world country (great job Texas!) while the rest of western civilisation is decreasing those numbers and the overall attacks on Planned Parenthood and clinics that could provide abortions are taking away the some of the last healthcare poor people have in certain areas. Republican politicians don't seem to want to understand — on a fundamental level — how health insurance works and I'm already dreading comparisons of medically avoidable deaths for the time before and after Trump. Good luck USA :(
Compel wrote: And how many of them happened despite Obama, rather than because of?
Yeah, numbers 9, 10, and 12 were either things he is opposed to or had no control over. And 2 is tenuous at best , especially as as he did try to close down Gitmo but congress refused. 1 confuses patriotism with nationalism, and he barley ever talked about 8 (certainly far less than bush for example).
"Trickle-down" fundamentally ignores the whole concept of velocity of money, that a dollar sitting in some wealthy person's savings account or hedge fund for a year is generating dramatically less productive economic activity than poor people circulating it through purchases seven or eight times that year because there's more of them and they have actually have to *spend* more of their income on a relative level, and being poor usually means daily life stuff being more expensive over time (e.g. buying crappy $20 shoes 5 times a year because you can never afford to save $80 for the good shoes before your crappy shoes wear out).
That whole concept should have been left in a deep, dark grave long ago, but...
Vaktathi wrote: "Trickle-down" fundamentally ignores the whole concept of velocity of money, that a dollar sitting in some wealthy person's savings account or hedge fund for a year is generating dramatically less productive economic activity than poor people circulating it through purchases seven or eight times that year because there's more of them and they have actually have to *spend* more of their income on a relative level, and being poor usually means daily life stuff being more expensive over time (e.g. buying crappy $20 shoes 5 times a year because you can never afford to save $80 for the good shoes before your crappy shoes wear out).
That whole concept should have been left in a deep, dark grave long ago, but...
I wonder if we'll see the same outcry about emails from Clinton's email...enthusiasts over the reuse of a private email system by Trump admin personnel, and a system.that was used to disappear millions of emails under thr Bush administration at that. I doubt it however.
Vaktathi wrote: "Trickle-down" fundamentally ignores the whole concept of velocity of money, that a dollar sitting in some wealthy person's savings account or hedge fund for a year is generating dramatically less productive economic activity than poor people circulating it through purchases seven or eight times that year because there's more of them and they have actually have to *spend* more of their income on a relative level, and being poor usually means daily life stuff being more expensive over time (e.g. buying crappy $20 shoes 5 times a year because you can never afford to save $80 for the good shoes before your crappy shoes wear out).
That whole concept should have been left in a deep, dark grave long ago, but...
I've explained another reason why this concept makes no sense before.
A rich guy who buys a car isn't buying a Honda Civic. He's buying some six figure luxury rider, which probably rolls off the production line in two digit figures and is made by another rich guy who doesn't employ nearly as many people as a more basic car manufacturer. He doesn't rent a fishing boat. He buys a yacht. The kinds of things the rich buy with their millions usually results in the rich paying the rich for services only the rich can afford and that don't employ a large number of people. Trickle down might have some effect in middling income brackets where someone is still buying $50 watches and clothes at the "slightly better than Sears" stores, but once you get into the realm of the mega rich they're not really paying anyone for their goods and services who isn't already rich. A rich guy doesn't shop at the local Gap or Jos. A Banks, he's off at some specialty store that maybe employs 10 guys and is spending more there than any of them make in a year and the guy pocketing the money from that ludicrously expensive suit is just going to go buy one himself, or invest his money into some bank somewhere where it'll sit accumulating interest and maybe gets used help subsidize a small business loan that poor Indian immigrant down the street will never pay off because the rate is ridiculous.
I wonder if we'll see the same outcry about emails from Clinton's email...enthusiasts over the reuse of a private email system by Trump admin personnel, and a system.that was used to disappear millions of emails under thr Bush administration at that. I doubt it however.
But if they don't outcry, that would mean all of the 'outrage' was nothing more than imbecilic rage-mongering against a politician they didn't like and not any genuine interest in security!
DAVID MUIR: I wanna ask you about something you said this week right here at the White House. You brought in congressional leaders to the White House. You spoke at length about the presidential election with them -- telling them that you lost the popular vote because of millions of illegal votes, 3 to 5 million illegal votes. That would be the biggest electoral fraud in American history. Where is the evidence of that?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: So, let me tell you first of all, it was so misrepresented. That was supposed to be a confidential meeting. And you weren't supposed to go out and talk to the press as soon as you -- but the Democrats viewed it not as a confidential meeting.
DAVID MUIR: But you have tweeted ...
(OVERTALK)
DAVID MUIR: ... about the millions of illegals ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Sure. And I do -- and I'm very ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... and I mean it. But just so you -- it was supposed to be a confidential meeting. They turned it into not a con... Number two, the conversation lasted for about a minute. They made it -- somebody said it was, like, 25 percent of the ... It wasn't. It was hardly even discussed.
I said it. And I said it strongly because what's going on with voter fraud is horrible. That's number one. Number two, I would've won the popular vote if I was campaigning for the popular vote. I would've gone to California where I didn't go at all. I would've gone to New York where I didn't campaign at all.
I would've gone to a couple of places that I didn't go to. And I would've won that much easier than winning the electoral college. But as you know, the electoral college is all that matters. It doesn't make any difference. So, I would've won very, very easily. But it's a different form of winning. You would campaign much differently. You would have a totally different campaign. So, but ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... you're just asking a question. I would've easily won the popular vote, much easier, in my opinion, than winning the electoral college. I ended up going to 19 different states. I went to the state of Maine four times for one. I needed one.
I went to M-- I got it, by the way. But it turned out I didn't need it because we ended up winning by a massive amount, 306. I needed 270. We got 306. You and everybody said, "There's no way you get to 270." I mean, your network said and almost everybody said, "There's no way you can get to ..." So, I went to Maine four times. I went to various places. And that's the beauty of the electoral college. With that being said, if you look at voter registration, you look at the dead people that are registered to vote who vote, you look at people that are registered in two states, you look at all of these different things that are happening with registration. You take a look at those registration for -- you're gonna s-- find -- and we're gonna do an investigation on it.
DAVID MUIR: But 3 to 5 million illegal votes?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we're gonna find out. But it could very well be that much. Absolutely.
DAVID MUIR: But ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: But we're gonna find out.
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: In fact, I heard one of the other side, they were saying it's not 3 to 5. It's not 3 to 5. I said, "Well, Mr. Trump is talking about registration, tell--" He said, "You know we don't wanna talk about registration." They don't wanna talk about registration.
You have people that are registered who are dead, who are illegals, who are in two states. You have people registered in two states. They're registered in a New York and a New Jersey. They vote twice. There are millions of votes, in my opinion. Now ...
DAVID MUIR: But again ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I'm doing an ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... investigation. David, David, David ...
DAVID MUIR: You’re now, you’re now president of the United States when you say ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Of course, and I want the voting process to be legitimate.
DAVID MUIR: But what I'm asking ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: The people that ...
DAVID MUIR: ... what I'm asking that -- when you say in your opinion millions of illegal votes, that is something that is extremely fundamental to our functioning democracy, a fair and free election.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Sure. Sure. Sure.
DAVID MUIR: You say you're gonna launch an investigation.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Sure, done.
DAVID MUIR: What you have presented so far has been debunked. It's been called ...
(OVERTALK)
DAVID MUIR: ... false.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, it hasn't. Take a look at the Pew reports.
DAVID MUIR: I called the author of the Pew report last night. And he told me that they found no evidence of voter ...
(OVERTALK)
DAVID MUIR: ... fraud.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Really? Then why did he write the report?
DAVID MUIR: He said no evidence of voter fraud.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Excuse me, then why did he write the report?
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: According to Pew report, then he's -- then he's groveling again. You know, I always talk about the reporters that grovel when they wanna write something that you wanna hear but not necessarily millions of people wanna hear or have to hear.
DAVID MUIR: So, you’ve launched an investigation?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We're gonna launch an investigation to find out. And then the next time -- and I will say this, of those votes cast, none of 'em come to me. None of 'em come to me. They would all be for the other side. None of 'em come to me. But when you look at the people that are registered: dead, illegal and two states and some cases maybe three states -- we have a lot to look into.
So the TL;DR is that it's Trump's opinion that "millions" of people voted illegally (which we all know is just as good as fact), he doesn't understand the basics of research papers, and doesn't like it when reporters tell the truth if it isn't what people want to hear.
Interesting. With such confidence in massive election fraud surely the republican party will declare the results of the election invalid and forfeit their positions until legitimate elections can be had, right?
DAVID MUIR: I wanna ask you about something you said this week right here at the White House. You brought in congressional leaders to the White House. You spoke at length about the presidential election with them -- telling them that you lost the popular vote because of millions of illegal votes, 3 to 5 million illegal votes. That would be the biggest electoral fraud in American history. Where is the evidence of that?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: So, let me tell you first of all, it was so misrepresented. That was supposed to be a confidential meeting. And you weren't supposed to go out and talk to the press as soon as you -- but the Democrats viewed it not as a confidential meeting.
DAVID MUIR: But you have tweeted ...
(OVERTALK)
DAVID MUIR: ... about the millions of illegals ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Sure. And I do -- and I'm very ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... and I mean it. But just so you -- it was supposed to be a confidential meeting. They turned it into not a con... Number two, the conversation lasted for about a minute. They made it -- somebody said it was, like, 25 percent of the ... It wasn't. It was hardly even discussed.
I said it. And I said it strongly because what's going on with voter fraud is horrible. That's number one. Number two, I would've won the popular vote if I was campaigning for the popular vote. I would've gone to California where I didn't go at all. I would've gone to New York where I didn't campaign at all.
I would've gone to a couple of places that I didn't go to. And I would've won that much easier than winning the electoral college. But as you know, the electoral college is all that matters. It doesn't make any difference. So, I would've won very, very easily. But it's a different form of winning. You would campaign much differently. You would have a totally different campaign. So, but ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... you're just asking a question. I would've easily won the popular vote, much easier, in my opinion, than winning the electoral college. I ended up going to 19 different states. I went to the state of Maine four times for one. I needed one.
I went to M-- I got it, by the way. But it turned out I didn't need it because we ended up winning by a massive amount, 306. I needed 270. We got 306. You and everybody said, "There's no way you get to 270." I mean, your network said and almost everybody said, "There's no way you can get to ..." So, I went to Maine four times. I went to various places. And that's the beauty of the electoral college. With that being said, if you look at voter registration, you look at the dead people that are registered to vote who vote, you look at people that are registered in two states, you look at all of these different things that are happening with registration. You take a look at those registration for -- you're gonna s-- find -- and we're gonna do an investigation on it.
DAVID MUIR: But 3 to 5 million illegal votes?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we're gonna find out. But it could very well be that much. Absolutely.
DAVID MUIR: But ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: But we're gonna find out.
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: In fact, I heard one of the other side, they were saying it's not 3 to 5. It's not 3 to 5. I said, "Well, Mr. Trump is talking about registration, tell--" He said, "You know we don't wanna talk about registration." They don't wanna talk about registration.
You have people that are registered who are dead, who are illegals, who are in two states. You have people registered in two states. They're registered in a New York and a New Jersey. They vote twice. There are millions of votes, in my opinion. Now ...
DAVID MUIR: But again ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I'm doing an ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... investigation. David, David, David ...
DAVID MUIR: You’re now, you’re now president of the United States when you say ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Of course, and I want the voting process to be legitimate.
DAVID MUIR: But what I'm asking ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: The people that ...
DAVID MUIR: ... what I'm asking that -- when you say in your opinion millions of illegal votes, that is something that is extremely fundamental to our functioning democracy, a fair and free election.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Sure. Sure. Sure.
DAVID MUIR: You say you're gonna launch an investigation.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Sure, done.
DAVID MUIR: What you have presented so far has been debunked. It's been called ...
(OVERTALK)
DAVID MUIR: ... false.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, it hasn't. Take a look at the Pew reports.
DAVID MUIR: I called the author of the Pew report last night. And he told me that they found no evidence of voter ...
(OVERTALK)
DAVID MUIR: ... fraud.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Really? Then why did he write the report?
DAVID MUIR: He said no evidence of voter fraud.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Excuse me, then why did he write the report?
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: According to Pew report, then he's -- then he's groveling again. You know, I always talk about the reporters that grovel when they wanna write something that you wanna hear but not necessarily millions of people wanna hear or have to hear.
DAVID MUIR: So, you’ve launched an investigation?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We're gonna launch an investigation to find out. And then the next time -- and I will say this, of those votes cast, none of 'em come to me. None of 'em come to me. They would all be for the other side. None of 'em come to me. But when you look at the people that are registered: dead, illegal and two states and some cases maybe three states -- we have a lot to look into.
Fething dirtbag! But he's a champion of the working man...same gak bag tricks everybody knows about and his lap-dog defenders still stand by him. Unbelievable!
DAVID MUIR: I wanna ask you about something you said this week right here at the White House. You brought in congressional leaders to the White House. You spoke at length about the presidential election with them -- telling them that you lost the popular vote because of millions of illegal votes, 3 to 5 million illegal votes. That would be the biggest electoral fraud in American history. Where is the evidence of that?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: So, let me tell you first of all, it was so misrepresented. That was supposed to be a confidential meeting. And you weren't supposed to go out and talk to the press as soon as you -- but the Democrats viewed it not as a confidential meeting.
DAVID MUIR: But you have tweeted ...
(OVERTALK)
DAVID MUIR: ... about the millions of illegals ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Sure. And I do -- and I'm very ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... and I mean it. But just so you -- it was supposed to be a confidential meeting. They turned it into not a con... Number two, the conversation lasted for about a minute. They made it -- somebody said it was, like, 25 percent of the ... It wasn't. It was hardly even discussed.
I said it. And I said it strongly because what's going on with voter fraud is horrible. That's number one. Number two, I would've won the popular vote if I was campaigning for the popular vote. I would've gone to California where I didn't go at all. I would've gone to New York where I didn't campaign at all.
I would've gone to a couple of places that I didn't go to. And I would've won that much easier than winning the electoral college. But as you know, the electoral college is all that matters. It doesn't make any difference. So, I would've won very, very easily. But it's a different form of winning. You would campaign much differently. You would have a totally different campaign. So, but ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... you're just asking a question. I would've easily won the popular vote, much easier, in my opinion, than winning the electoral college. I ended up going to 19 different states. I went to the state of Maine four times for one. I needed one.
I went to M-- I got it, by the way. But it turned out I didn't need it because we ended up winning by a massive amount, 306. I needed 270. We got 306. You and everybody said, "There's no way you get to 270." I mean, your network said and almost everybody said, "There's no way you can get to ..." So, I went to Maine four times. I went to various places. And that's the beauty of the electoral college. With that being said, if you look at voter registration, you look at the dead people that are registered to vote who vote, you look at people that are registered in two states, you look at all of these different things that are happening with registration. You take a look at those registration for -- you're gonna s-- find -- and we're gonna do an investigation on it.
DAVID MUIR: But 3 to 5 million illegal votes?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we're gonna find out. But it could very well be that much. Absolutely.
DAVID MUIR: But ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: But we're gonna find out.
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: In fact, I heard one of the other side, they were saying it's not 3 to 5. It's not 3 to 5. I said, "Well, Mr. Trump is talking about registration, tell--" He said, "You know we don't wanna talk about registration." They don't wanna talk about registration.
You have people that are registered who are dead, who are illegals, who are in two states. You have people registered in two states. They're registered in a New York and a New Jersey. They vote twice. There are millions of votes, in my opinion. Now ...
DAVID MUIR: But again ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I'm doing an ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... investigation. David, David, David ...
DAVID MUIR: You’re now, you’re now president of the United States when you say ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Of course, and I want the voting process to be legitimate.
DAVID MUIR: But what I'm asking ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: The people that ...
DAVID MUIR: ... what I'm asking that -- when you say in your opinion millions of illegal votes, that is something that is extremely fundamental to our functioning democracy, a fair and free election.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Sure. Sure. Sure.
DAVID MUIR: You say you're gonna launch an investigation.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Sure, done.
DAVID MUIR: What you have presented so far has been debunked. It's been called ...
(OVERTALK)
DAVID MUIR: ... false.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, it hasn't. Take a look at the Pew reports.
DAVID MUIR: I called the author of the Pew report last night. And he told me that they found no evidence of voter ...
(OVERTALK)
DAVID MUIR: ... fraud.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Really? Then why did he write the report?
DAVID MUIR: He said no evidence of voter fraud.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Excuse me, then why did he write the report?
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: According to Pew report, then he's -- then he's groveling again. You know, I always talk about the reporters that grovel when they wanna write something that you wanna hear but not necessarily millions of people wanna hear or have to hear.
DAVID MUIR: So, you’ve launched an investigation?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We're gonna launch an investigation to find out. And then the next time -- and I will say this, of those votes cast, none of 'em come to me. None of 'em come to me. They would all be for the other side. None of 'em come to me. But when you look at the people that are registered: dead, illegal and two states and some cases maybe three states -- we have a lot to look into.
So the TL;DR is that it's Trump's opinion that "millions" of people voted illegally (which we all know is just as good as fact), he doesn't understand the basics of research papers, and doesn't like it when reporters tell the truth if it isn't what people want to hear.
I wonder why, then, did Trump's own lawyers certify the election results as being free of fraud? Hmmmmm.... I'm genuinely starting to think this guy is fething nuts. Seriously.
BigWaaagh wrote: Fething dirtbag! But he's a champion of the working man...same gak bag tricks everybody knows about and his lap-dog defenders still stand by him. Unbelievable!
Trump's lease with the federal government to develop and operate the hotel expressly prohibits any elected official from benefiting from the property. So far, Trump has not divested from the project. The government's General Services Administration has declined to comment on the apparent contract violation that occurred when Trump took office last week.
BigWaaagh wrote: Fething dirtbag! But he's a champion of the working man...same gak bag tricks everybody knows about and his lap-dog defenders still stand by him. Unbelievable!
LordofHats wrote: Get ready for that egomaniac to start stealing people's right to vote.
Well I'm sure he's looking into ways how to present his results in next elections to be 100% votes for him regardless of actual votes. Bit more "alternative facts".
Then he's going all how he got usurped from power illegally despite 100% votes being cast for him.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BigWaaagh wrote: I wonder why, then, did Trump's own lawyers certify the election results as being free of fraud? Hmmmmm.... I'm genuinely starting to think this guy is fething nuts. Seriously.
Only now? Despite him acting like this for years? It's not like anybody can pretend we didn't get exactly what he told us. All the talks of "it's just campaign talk. He'll quiet down once he's president" has been BS from the get-go.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Republicans and their supporters like a lot of these ideas.
just because they like some of the crazy, doesn't mean they don't have a reason to toss the focus of everyone's ire overboard and put in the guy who goes the party line instead.
I'm sure they can spin it so they are heroes, especially after the Trump fails to live up to the crazy peoples expectations.
Kilkrazy wrote: There are countries where Christians are in danger of oppression by Muslims -- ban refugees from there.
ISIL is bad because they use torture -- fight back by using torture.
Ah but christians are specifically excluded. After all christians do no harm...(reads article about how germans captured right wingers planning to attack jews, immigrants etc)
The way President Trump tells it, the meandering, falsehood-filled, self-involved speech that he gave at the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters last weekend was one of the greatest addresses ever given.
“That speech was a home run,” Trump told ABC News just a few minutes into his first major television interview since moving into the White House. “See what Fox said. They said it was one of the great speeches. They showed the people applauding and screaming. … I got a standing ovation. In fact, they said it was the biggest standing ovation since Peyton Manning had won the Super Bowl, and they said it was equal. I got a standing ovation. It lasted for a long period of time.”
The most powerful man in the world continued: “You probably ran it live. I know when I do good speeches. I know when I do bad speeches. That speech was a total home run. They loved it. … People loved it. They loved it. They gave me a standing ovation for a long period of time. They never even sat down, most of them, during the speech. There was love in the room. You and other networks covered it very inaccurately. … That speech was a good speech. And you and a couple of other networks tried to downplay that speech. And it was very, very unfortunate that you did.”
Trump brushed off the suggestion that it was disrespectful to deliver the speech — which included musings about magazine covers and crowd sizes — in front of a hallowed memorial to CIA agents killed in the line of duty. He insisted that the crowd was filled with “the people of the CIA,” not his supporters, and could have been several times larger than it was. Had a poll been taken of the 350-person audience to gauge the speech's greatness, Trump said the result would have been "350 to nothing” in his favor.
The lengthy interview, which aired late Wednesday night, provided a glimpse of the president and his state-of-mind on his fifth full day in office. It revealed a man who is obsessed with his own popularity and eager to provide evidence of his likability, even if that information doesn't match reality.
Trump insisted that he could have “very, very easily” won the popular vote in the election — which concluded more than 11 weeks ago — had he simply tried. He again suggested that Democrat Hillary Clinton won the popular vote because of widespread voter fraud, of which there is no evidence. He hinted that he thinks voter fraud might have also helped elect former president Barack Obama, whose favorability ratings were higher than his on Inauguration Day. He justified some of his unsubstantiated claims by saying that millions of his supporters agree with him. He did acknowledge that his own approval rating is “pretty bad,” but he blamed that on the media.
Trump plugged an “extraordinary poll” that he said found that people “loved and liked” his inaugural address. He again claimed to have “the biggest crowd in the history of inaugural speeches” and accused the media of demeaning his supporters by underreporting turnout. Trump also took credit for the Dow Jones industrial average closing above 20,000 for the first time on Wednesday, referred to a former rival as “one of the combatants that I fought to get here” and said that a recent visitor told him that their meeting “was the single greatest meeting I've ever had with anybody.”
Even some of the discussion of policy seemed to come back to the fight for popularity, with Trump summing up his plan to replace the Affordable Care Act in this place: “Millions of people will be happy. Right now, you have millions and millions and millions of people that are unhappy.”
Four times, the president referred to himself in the third-person.
The interview revealed just how preoccupied Trump is with two variables that are gumming up his claim of being widely beloved: Losing the popular vote to Clinton and hosting an inauguration crowd that was smaller than in previous years.
“I would've won the popular vote if I was campaigning for the popular vote,” Trump said. “I would've gone to California, where I didn't go at all. I would've gone to New York, where I didn't campaign at all. I would've gone to a couple of places that I didn't go to. And I would've won that much easier than winning the electoral college.”
And even without trying to win the popular vote, Trump has said that he did win the popular vote — if you don't count the millions of fraudulent votes he believes were cast, although state elections officials say they have seen no evidence of that.
“You have people that are registered who are dead, who are illegals,” said Trump, who has called for an investigation. “You have people registered in two states. They're registered in New York and New Jersey. They vote twice. There are millions of votes, in my opinion.”
When pressed to back up his accusations, Trump pointed to a 2012 Pew Center report. When ABC's David Muir said the author of that report found “no evidence of voter fraud,” Trump attacked that author.
“Excuse me,” the president snapped. “Then why did he write the report?”
“He's groveling again,” Trump said, repeating the word that he used to describe the gesture he made when imitating New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski, who wrote an article in 2001 that Trump recently tried to use as evidence that thousands of Muslims celebrated 9/11 on New Jersey rooftops, a rumor that has been repeatedly debunked. Many have interpreted Trump's movements as mocking Kovaleski's physical disability, not mimicking a person groveling.
“You know,” Trump continued, “I always talk about the reporters that grovel when they want to write something that you want to hear, but not necessarily millions of people want to hear, or have to hear.”
Muir attempted to get the president back on topic: “So you've launched an investigation?”
“We're going to launch an investigation to find out,” Trump said. “And then the next time — and I will say this: Of those votes cast, none of them come to me. None of them come to me. They would all be for the other side. None of them come to me.”
Muir listed the reactions of prominent Republicans who do not agree with Trump on this and are alarmed that he is challenging the credibility of the election system.
“Well, let me just tell you, you know what's important? Millions of people agree with me when I say that,” Trump said. “If you would have looked on one of the other networks and all of the people that were calling in, they're saying, 'We agree with Mr. Trump. We agree.' They're very smart people.”
Muir then transitioned into Trump's inauguration crowd size, asking the president why his press secretary delivered a statement on that topic on Saturday.
“Does that send a message to the American people that that's more important than some of the very pressing issues?” Muir said.
“Part of my whole victory was that the men and women of this country who have been forgotten will never be forgotten again,” Trump said. “We had a massive crowd of people. We had a crowd. I looked over that sea of people and I said to myself: 'Wow.' And I've seen crowds before. Big, big crowds. That was some crowd. When I looked at the numbers that happened to come in from all of the various sources, we had the biggest audience in the history of inaugural speeches. I said, the men and women that I was talking to who came out and voted will never be forgotten again. Therefore, I won't allow you or other people like you to demean that crowd and to demean the people that came to Washington, D.C., from faraway places because they like me. But more importantly, they like what I'm saying.”
Later in the interview, Muir asked the president about the hundreds of thousands of people who gathered in major cities and red-state towns across the country on Saturday to voice their opposition to his presidency. Trump admitted that the crowds were “large,” but then argued that an antiabortion march scheduled for Friday is also expecting a large crowd.
“You will have a very large crowd of people. I don't know, as large or larger — some people say it's going to be larger,” Trump said.
Muir cut him off: “I don't want to compare crowd sizes again.”
But Trump did. As the two toured Trump's new home, the president stopped in front of a framed photo of his inauguration crowd.
“Here's a picture of the crowd,” the president explained to the nation he now leads. “Now, the audience was the biggest ever, but this crowd was massive. Look how far back it goes. This crowd was massive. And I would actually take that camera and take your time [scanning the crowd] if you want to know the truth.”
Then the president took Muir to see another image, a panoramic photo by a local artist who has taken the exact same shot at each inauguration since Reagan was in office. (The other years were not presented for contrast.)
“One thing this shows is how far over they go here,” Trump said, walking up close to the print and pointing as he spoke. “Look. Look how far this is. This goes all the way down here. All the way down. Nobody sees that. You don't see that in the pictures. But when you look at this tremendous sea of love — I call it a sea of love. It's really something special, that all these people traveled here from all parts of the country, maybe the world, but all parts of the country. Hard for them to get here. Many of these people were the forgotten men and women, many of them. And they loved what I had to say. More importantly, they're going to love the result.”
Someone isn't feeling very great. A double shot of whisky nurse! Stat!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: What will happen when Trump's voting fraud enquiry report shows there wasn't any significant voting fraud?
Alternate facts.
We're talking about a party that has come to treat contrary information as suspect by its very nature, with a major section of its constituency so drunk on the kool-aid it'll believe literally anything so long as the words "God bless America" and "America first" are uttered somewhere in the speech. Trump either doesn't care that something isn't real, or he is incapable of realizing what is (both are equally bad for the rest of us). There's already rumor that the administration plans to purge government workers who have ever done anything related to Climate Change.
This is not an administration that gives a damn what is or isn't true.
Finally, some common sense (tm) immigration reform. Curious to see what else this entails.
A suspension of visas for several months is meaningless when the existing vetting process takes close to a year.
"Hey, person who won't be able to come in to country for 9 months while we vet your application, you can't come in to the country for 4 months."
It will have its desired political effect, because people who are very concerned about refugee terrorism and people who don't know how things work are very tightly correlated groups.
The only question is whether Trump knows this is nonsense but is conning voters, or whether he is also clueless and this is his advisors conning him.
sebster wrote:The only question is whether Trump knows this is nonsense but is conning voters, or whether he is also clueless and this is his advisors conning him.
I'm honestly starting to question this myself. This guy is too damn stupid to have run the campaign we saw last year, let alone have any real impute.
Kilkrazy wrote:Won't the public care?
Surely there is a point at which Republican supporters are going to be sickened by the cheating, the lies and the cognitive dissonance.
I once thought there would be a breaking point, but I now know that isn't true. Take my coworkers for example. The weeks before the election half of them were seething balls of fury. "How dare Clinton betray the country. Damn liberals. feth <insert racial slur for Hispanics>. If Trump doesn't win it's a con."
The very next day, no one even talked about the election. Not one word. No, cause see it's football season and that's what really matters. Now it's "how dare Brady cheat. Damn patriots. feth Patton Manning. If the Steelers don't win it's cause the Patriots cheated again." They didn't even talk about the inauguration, transition, Congressional hearings for appointees, or anything. The only comment I've overheard is about that stupid wall. There is an element of the Republican* constituency that only tunes into politics to score one for the team, and then tunes out once the point is won. Four years from now they'll just say Trump did a great job without knowing anything he did or didn't do.
*I would suspect this is true of the Democrats as well in some other way, I've just never seen it on display.
I think not insulting Trump is going to be so challenging by the end of the first quarter that if Germany didn't abolish that law the prisons would be filled before the year was done
CptJake wrote: You're ignoring illegal immigration THROUGH (not from) Mexico.
I'm not ignoring it, I'm treating it as irrelevant to the construction of a wall on the Mexican border, because it is irrelevant to the construction of a wall across Mexico. If a person is going to cross multiple borders to reach Mexico and then cross in to the US, you think going they're to give up if there's a wall in the way. That is laughable. They'll just redirect through alternate routs.
Meanwhile, you're still ignoring all the growth in illegal immigration is Asian. Imagine the $40b for this stupid wall redirected to fund active policing. Following up on visa overstays. Active policing of companies hiring illegal workers. Actual useful stuff. Even that would be way down the list on ways to best spend $40b, but miles ahead of this stupid wall.
I am sure Trump would agree that freedom of speech is a great thing, really great, the best. Lots of people from all over the country, all over the world, the best people, the forgotten people, but we remember them and celebrate this decision on National Parrotism Day.
Surely there is a point at which Republican supporters are going to be sickened by the cheating, the lies and the cognitive dissonance.
I've been waiting about 20 years. But the Republican party keeps hitting new lows, and the base keeps finding ways to excuse it. I remember when Newt Gingrich was seen as a horrible low in US politics. Now a return to Gingrich style bs would be such an amazing improvement.
LordofHats wrote: Four years from now they'll just say Trump did a great job without knowing anything he did or didn't do.
Yeah, I hear from my coworkers about how Obama was the worst president of all time, and yet when asked why they think that, I don't ever really get a straight answer (except from the one super racist guy, his answer is "because he's a n****r," but this is the same guy who uses Stromfront as his primary news source).
Inauguration Day was a scheduled day off for me so I'm not sure what they really talked about, but there wasn't a lot of discussion about it in the days prior. When the topic did come up, the recurring theme was how "the liberals" were all "crazy" and were going to attack DC or possibly attempt to assassinate Trump (seriously). This was mainly fostered by the guy who spends all day reading Breitbart (and is not the guy that reads Stormfront).
Kilkrazy wrote: Surely there is a point at which Republican supporters are going to be sickened by the cheating, the lies and the cognitive dissonance.
I doubt it. If Trump didn't already do it then I don't think anything will. 60 million people looked at Trump, knowing everything we know now, and said "this man should be president". That's simply the state of the republican party in 2017, a dysfunctional mess that is incapable of being anything else.
You People Made Me Give Up My Peanut Farm Before I Got To Be President
For generations, U.S. presidents have gone to great lengths to avoid potential conflicts of interest. When I was elected, I followed suit by placing my small business in a blind trust to assure our citizens that I would always put the country’s interests ahead of my own. It’s a vital presidential tradition. That’s why I find it a bit curious that our new commander-in-chief has been allowed to ignore it.
For Christ’s sake, you people made me get rid of my peanut farm before you let me be president.
I grew up on that farm. When my father died, I moved back home and worked those fields with my own two hands to keep it afloat. It was a hard job, but it was so rewarding. It wasn’t just a business—it was the place I called home. Letting go of the family farm was one of the hardest things I’ve ever had to do, but I did it because the American people asked me to. I did it for their sake, without enthusiasm, but also without hesitation.
Boy, times sure have changed, haven’t they? I couldn’t help but notice that the current occupant of the White House owns more than 500 companies, has business interests across the Middle East and Asia, and owes hundreds of millions of dollars to banks he is now responsible for regulating. It seems a touch unfair that a bigger fuss was made about my little peanut operation than all his office towers, hotels, and golf courses combined. All I had was a farm, you know? A small, precious farm.
Seriously, it was just a few fields and a warehouse, and you idiots still appointed a special prosecutor and spent six months investigating it.
Not a day goes by when I don’t think about what life would be like if I still had my peanut farm. I miss it so much. I miss feeling the sun on my face. I miss the earth in my hands. Sometimes, I’d go out to the fields before dawn. I’d watch the sun come up, watch it cast golden light on my plants, row by row. It was so calm; so quiet. Those were some of the best days of my life. It sure would’ve been nice to live out the rest of my years there, but I had to do what was right. I suppose only some of us have to.
God, I loved that peanut farm!
And where were my conflicts of interest, exactly? Seriously, do enlighten me, America, because I honestly have no idea. Did you worry I might be cutting deals in back rooms with the peanut butter lobby? Or that I might be too busy at harvest time to focus on the economy or the Middle East? Apparently, you did, and almost obsessively. Meanwhile, your new president holds a lease from the federal government to operate a $200 million hotel six blocks from the White House. I mean, come on!
Maybe I’m just a sucker. Apparently, all I needed to do was hand off control of the farm to my family. If I’d staged an elaborate song and dance about distancing myself—whatever that means—from all the day-to-day planting, picking, and salting, maybe I could have kept my peanut farm with the full blessing of you, the American people.
Besides, that peanut farm would probably be worth $200 million today, easy.
Our Prime Minister arrives in the USA for talks with Trump.
For American dakka members who have no knowledge of her, she likes too:
lock people up without trial
is in favour of spying on the British population with mass surveillance
And puts borderline racist messages on the sides of vans to get illegal immigrants to go home, even though her department, which was tasked with capping immigration, failed year after year.
In other words, she'll probably get on fine with Trump.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why Trump won wasn't people voting for him, it was people not voting for Clinton.
Two years of this kind of bs might energise the Democrat base even though it may not turn off Republicans.
The Democrat base is fine. It's the Democrat top brass who are the problem, as the election clearly showed.
Kilkrazy wrote: Surely there is a point at which Republican supporters are going to be sickened by the cheating, the lies and the cognitive dissonance.
I doubt it. If Trump didn't already do it then I don't think anything will. 60 million people looked at Trump, knowing everything we know now, and said "this man should be president". That's simply the state of the republican party in 2017, a dysfunctional mess that is incapable of being anything else.
Sadly, every nation gets the democracy and the political parties it deserves.
Kilkrazy wrote: What will happen when Trump's voting fraud enquiry report shows there wasn't any significant voting fraud?
Same as he always does. He will either dismiss it as being wrong and attack the people who produced it as being against him, or he will read it in a way, or only be given facts that, will totally justify his world view (see crowds at his inauguration). For example, it will almost certainly have some sort of voter fraud. Even the best system has some sort of attempt by someone. He will latch on to them finding 10 cases in one district as proof.
Does not bode well for the future of the internet, we may have to get ready to say "hello" to fee-based performance based on the type of traffic or content and bandwidth shaping of traffic your ISP doesn't like.
EDIT: also, in bizarro world, Trump ends up defending Obama in a roundabout way on Twitter by directly attacking Manning over an op-ed piece where Manning posits that Obama attempted to compromise too much against obstructionist opponents and didn't get as much done as a result.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38760552
Our Prime Minister arrives in the USA for talks with Trump.
For American dakka members who have no knowledge of her, she likes too:
lock people up without trial
is in favour of spying on the British population with mass surveillance
And puts borderline racist messages on the sides of vans to get illegal immigrants to go home, even though her department, which was tasked with capping immigration, failed year after year.
In other words, she'll probably get on fine with Trump.
Not bad.
But I'm not sure whether he will like Merkel. I guess not.
EDIT: also, in bizarro world, Trump ends up defending Obama in a roundabout way on Twitter by directly attacking Manning over an op-ed piece where Manning posits that Obama attempted to compromise too much against obstructionist opponents and didn't get as much done as a result. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38760552
So, not only is he lying about what Manning wrote, but Trump's proven that he's getting his information and opinions directly from watching Fox News, broadcasting it on Twitter, and possible making policy decisions.
It's like a insane black hole of hyper-conservative stupidity.
Trump administration has informed the Palestinian Authority that it is freezing the transfer of $221 million which was quietly authorized by the Obama administration in its final hours on January 20, a senior Palestinian source has told The Times of Israel.
Hopefully this is just the beginning of a broader change in policy.
CptJake wrote: You're ignoring illegal immigration THROUGH (not from) Mexico.
I'm not ignoring it, I'm treating it as irrelevant to the construction of a wall on the Mexican border, because it is irrelevant to the construction of a wall across Mexico. If a person is going to cross multiple borders to reach Mexico and then cross in to the US, you think going they're to give up if there's a wall in the way. That is laughable. They'll just redirect through alternate routs.
Meanwhile, you're still ignoring all the growth in illegal immigration is Asian. Imagine the $40b for this stupid wall redirected to fund active policing. Following up on visa overstays. Active policing of companies hiring illegal workers. Actual useful stuff. Even that would be way down the list on ways to best spend $40b, but miles ahead of this stupid wall.
If Mexico stops aiding folks from further south (they tightly control who passes through and aid in their passing) because there is not an easy way to pass them through, a lot of it stops at Mexico's southern border.
And your Asia point is borderline silly. Illegal immigrants from our south may be declining, and from Asia may be increasing (generally visa overstays), but the NUMBERS from each are still significantly different. Add Mexico to South and Central American nations and you have many times the total from Asian nations, and it isn't even close.
Our Prime Minister arrives in the USA for talks with Trump.
For American dakka members who have no knowledge of her, she likes too:
lock people up without trial
is in favour of spying on the British population with mass surveillance
And puts borderline racist messages on the sides of vans to get illegal immigrants to go home, even though her department, which was tasked with capping immigration, failed year after year.
In other words, she'll probably get on fine with Trump.
Not bad.
But I'm not sure whether he will like Merkel. I guess not.
If Merkel has any sense, she'll delay meeting Trump for as long as possible.
CptJake wrote: You're ignoring illegal immigration THROUGH (not from) Mexico.
I'm not ignoring it, I'm treating it as irrelevant to the construction of a wall on the Mexican border, because it is irrelevant to the construction of a wall across Mexico. If a person is going to cross multiple borders to reach Mexico and then cross in to the US, you think going they're to give up if there's a wall in the way. That is laughable. They'll just redirect through alternate routs.
Meanwhile, you're still ignoring all the growth in illegal immigration is Asian. Imagine the $40b for this stupid wall redirected to fund active policing. Following up on visa overstays. Active policing of companies hiring illegal workers. Actual useful stuff. Even that would be way down the list on ways to best spend $40b, but miles ahead of this stupid wall.
If Mexico stops aiding folks from further south (they tightly control who passes through and aid in their passing) because there is not an easy way to pass them through, a lot of it stops at Mexico's southern border.
And your Asia point is borderline silly. Illegal immigrants from our south may be declining, and from Asia may be increasing (generally visa overstays), but the NUMBERS from each are still significantly different. Add Mexico to South and Central American nations and you have many times the total from Asian nations, and it isn't even close.
Yeah, the numbers are a bit dated, but the trends are still similar.
if you're going to be making a point about where people are illegally entering the US from, posting an image that shows where people have already come from is entirely pointless. You'd want numbers on current flows, not on those of the past.
CptJake wrote: You're ignoring illegal immigration THROUGH (not from) Mexico.
I'm not ignoring it, I'm treating it as irrelevant to the construction of a wall on the Mexican border, because it is irrelevant to the construction of a wall across Mexico. If a person is going to cross multiple borders to reach Mexico and then cross in to the US, you think going they're to give up if there's a wall in the way. That is laughable. They'll just redirect through alternate routs.
Meanwhile, you're still ignoring all the growth in illegal immigration is Asian. Imagine the $40b for this stupid wall redirected to fund active policing. Following up on visa overstays. Active policing of companies hiring illegal workers. Actual useful stuff. Even that would be way down the list on ways to best spend $40b, but miles ahead of this stupid wall.
If Mexico stops aiding folks from further south (they tightly control who passes through and aid in their passing) because there is not an easy way to pass them through, a lot of it stops at Mexico's southern border.
And your Asia point is borderline silly. Illegal immigrants from our south may be declining, and from Asia may be increasing (generally visa overstays), but the NUMBERS from each are still significantly different. Add Mexico to South and Central American nations and you have many times the total from Asian nations, and it isn't even close.
Yeah, the numbers are a bit dated, but the trends are still similar.
if you're going to be making a point about where people are illegally entering the US from, posting an image that shows where people have already come from is entirely pointless. You'd want numbers on current flows, not on those of the past.
We do have a lot of aliens here who are working towards citizen ship. Also have certain status that allows them to get drivers licenses and most importantly pay taxes, at least they pay their taxes unlike some people.
if you're going to be making a point about where people are illegally entering the US from, posting an image that shows where people have already come from is entirely pointless. You'd want numbers on current flows, not on those of the past.
Well trump and his fans might think that wall which doesn't stop illegal migration will instead send them back retroactively
... I didn't expect this from him anytime soon. Maybe just mentioned in the spur of the moment, like he likes to do, with no actual plan...?
If this actually ends up with a plan for (Clinton-esque) no-fly zones and the like, the irony would be thick enough to cut with a knife...
Well, I am sure with the help of our NATO allies ....we.... would...... <blink>...... why is everyone looking at me like that!
Maybe his genius masterplan is to intervene in Syria and call for the aid of other NATO nations, then using it as an example to leave NATO when not everybody wants to join in on that clusterfeth?
I would so like to see Trump's face live when he realizes Mexico will not pay for it That's going to hurt his ego soooo bad. He could probably do good business out of video of his face though...
Well it could be that Mexico president cancelled it first and then Trump tries to pretend it was his decision rather than Mexico president giving "I won't bother with you".
One news article said they weren't sure who cancelled it first.
Good. If Nieto isn't willing to put up with Trump's bs, hopefully other world leaders will also decide to stand firm. Of course, he could just be pulling a Rubio, acting tough before folding like a wet paper bag. Hopefully not.
In other news, the State Department is leaking senior management officials:
Best part is they quit as Tillerson was visiting. And these guys aren't just party hacks - for example, Kennedy has been Under Secretary since 1993.
Sorta misleading...
They're political appointees...
They are presidential appointees who submit resignations during every transition. Their resignations were accepted. We wrote about it y'day. https://t.co/Uvx0YywH00
Instead of looking at tweets, look at the markets.
Mexico is going to bend the knee. The peso was already at an all-time low...today's cancellation puts it at a steady -1%. Nieto is facing two options, (1) bend the knee, (2) face near-certain economic ruin. Have fun with that.
Mexico is going to bend the knee. The peso was already at an all-time low...today's cancellation puts it at a steady -1%. Nieto is facing two options, (1) bend the knee, (2) face near-certain economic ruin. Have fun with that.
Right, because handing over billions of dollars worth of pesos to the U.S. will certainly help their economy.
Best part is they quit as Tillerson was visiting. And these guys aren't just party hacks - for example, Kennedy has been Under Secretary since 1993.
Sorta misleading...
They're political appointees...
They are presidential appointees who submit resignations during every transition. Their resignations were accepted. We wrote about it y'day. https://t.co/Uvx0YywH00
— Matt Lee (@APDiploWriter) January 26, 2017
If that's the case, isn't it worse? These are people with years of experience whom have been kept on by presidents from both sides of the aisle.
Mexico is going to bend the knee. The peso was already at an all-time low...today's cancellation puts it at a steady -1%. Nieto is facing two options, (1) bend the knee, (2) face near-certain economic ruin. Have fun with that.
Actually,
1) Bend the knee and face near certain economic ruin.
2) Stand up to the ridiculous blowhard perhaps face near certain economic ruin.
40 billion dollars is 30% of Mexico's GDP. They aren't playing for Trumps deeply, deeply stupid wall.
Mexico is going to bend the knee. The peso was already at an all-time low...today's cancellation puts it at a steady -1%. Nieto is facing two options, (1) bend the knee, (2) face near-certain economic ruin. Have fun with that.
Right, because handing over billions of dollars worth of pesos to the U.S. will certainly help their economy.
Yeah.
If Trump starts messing with trade deals too much they can always look elsewhere. Better that than get worse deal anyway + billions of dollars worth of pesos lost.
Good. If Nieto isn't willing to put up with Trump's bs, hopefully other world leaders will also decide to stand firm. Of course, he could just be pulling a Rubio, acting tough before folding like a wet paper bag. Hopefully not.
In other news, the State Department is leaking senior management officials:
Top State Department officials asked to leave by Trump administration
From CNN's Elise Labott:
Two senior administration officials said Thursday that the Trump administration asked four top State Department management officials to leave as part of an effort to "clean house" at Foggy Bottom.
Patrick Kennedy, who served for nine years as the undersecretary for management, Assistant Secretary for Administration and Consular Affairs Michele Bond and Ambassador Gentry Smith, director of the Office for Foreign Missions, were sent letters by the White House that their service was no longer required, the sources told CNN.
All four submitted letters of resignation, per tradition at the beginning of the administration. The letters from the White House said that their resignations were accepted and they were thanked for their service.
I dunno if I said it on the UK politics thread or this one.
The entire Scotch industry (Scotch being defined as whisky from Scotland), was worth £5 billion. This was really great and awesome news for Scotland. Scotch, being one of Scotland's main industries.
That's less than half the price of the wall, judging by the $4 billion it seems to have jumped up overnight.
You might be drinking a glass of Scotch right now. The entire industry that made that glass in the last year. Less than half. A wall.
Sure, Mexico's a heckuva lot larger than Scotland population-wise, but still... That's gonna be a whole lot of money.
Mexico is going to bend the knee. The peso was already at an all-time low...today's cancellation puts it at a steady -1%. Nieto is facing two options, (1) bend the knee, (2) face near-certain economic ruin. Have fun with that.
Since we're already using Game of Thrones-esque terminology...
Compel wrote: I dunno if I said it on the UK politics thread or this one.
The entire Scotch industry (Scotch being defined as whisky from Scotland), was worth £5 billion. This was really great and awesome news for Scotland. Scotch, being one of Scotland's main industries.
That's less than half the price of the wall, judging by the $4 billion it seems to have jumped up overnight.
You might be drinking a glass of Scotch right now. The entire industry that made that glass in the last year. Less than half. A wall.
Sure, Mexico's a heckuva lot larger than Scotland population-wise, but still... That's gonna be a whole lot of money.
And who knows how much wall would really cost? Trump says 8 billions but seeing how bad Trump is with numbers(what with initially claiming he got more votes...I can imagine frustration of his aides trying to explain him that YES her 65.8m IS more than his 63M...) we can be sure it's not going to be that cheap. Even congress agree estimating it at 12 billions and probably will cost US poor&middle class even more than that.
Mexico is going to bend the knee. The peso was already at an all-time low...today's cancellation puts it at a steady -1%. Nieto is facing two options, (1) bend the knee, (2) face near-certain economic ruin. Have fun with that.
Right, because handing over billions of dollars worth of pesos to the U.S. will certainly help their economy.
More important than that, it's straight up political suicide. Even if this guy bends knee, we'd quickly see him removed and someone else instilled who will just cut ties.
Welcome to the New America, pissing off one of the only countries we have a land border with since 2016.
And who knows how much wall would really cost? Trump says 8 billions but seeing how bad Trump is with numbers(what with initially claiming he got more votes...I can imagine frustration of his aides trying to explain him that YES her 65.8m IS more than his 63M...) we can be sure it's not going to be that cheap. Even congress agree estimating it at 12 billions and probably will cost US poor&middle class even more than that.
There is no way this project doesn't become a financial black hole. But hey. Some very rich contractors will get much richer.
As far as I understand it, he doesn't have construction companies, the tactic is more, Hire construction companies, have them do the work, don't pay them. Wait for them to go bankrupt because they've been working for X many months for free and now have no cashflow...
LordofHats wrote: There is no way this project doesn't become a financial black hole. But hey. Some very rich contractors will get much richer.
Does Trump have construction companies? If yes wouldn't be surprised if they were tasked with building it.
Built with help of illegal immigrants no doubt. "Nobody hires illegal immigrants better than I. Yes. Nobody."
Better yet, who the feth will Trump find to build the wall? I mean everyone knows he's just going to tell them to feth off when it comes time to actually pay anyone.
Moe importantly, I'm curious where all those posters are who insisted pi]insisted[/i] 6 months ago that Trump wasn't serious about the wall and we were all being idiots to think he was.
Well the President of Mexico just told the President of America to feth off, so, how serious is he?
Yeah, Mexico isnt gonna pay for squat, anyone who thinks they are going to pay for it is....more than a wee bit deluded. Even if the Mexican government was willing, the Mexican people would almost certainly ensure that such officials ended up in multiple different 40gal drums.
Now, if this insanity goes through and some absurd ineffectual physical wall is actually built, I fully expect all sorts of accounting gimmickry and mental gymnastics from the Trump administration to give them the ability to say that Mexico *indirectly* paid for it, that will almost certainly be the party line, but it will be the US taxpayer who foots the real bill.
Vaktathi wrote: Yeah, Mexico isnt gonna pay for squat, anyone who thinks they are going to pay for it is....more than a wee bit deluded. Even if the Mexican government was willing, the Mexican people would almost certainly ensure that such officials ended up in multiple different 40gal drums.
Now, if this insanity goes through and some absurd ineffectual physical wall is actually built, I fully expect all sorts of accounting gimmickry and mental gymnastics from the Trump administration to give them the ability to say that Mexico *indirectly* paid for it, that will almost certainly be the party line, but it will be the US taxpayer who foots the real bill.
Its a jobs program - a twofer.
Whats really going to cost is the moat for the genespliced Great White Sharkgators.
LordofHats wrote: Moe importantly, I'm curious where all those posters are who insisted pi]insisted[/i] 6 months ago that Trump wasn't serious about the wall and we were all being idiots to think he was.
Oh yes. "It's all campaign talk" or "it's not going to be physical wall".
Lol. Wish it was but Trump is moving in with all the bad decisions he promised to do like a bull in chinaware store.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Yeah, Mexico isnt gonna pay for squat, anyone who thinks they are going to pay for it is....more than a wee bit deluded. Even if the Mexican government was willing, the Mexican people would almost certainly ensure that such officials ended up in multiple different 40gal drums.
Mexico even couldn't pay even if they wanted. Would ruin the country for sure. It's pipe dream like me being able to afford trip to the space. Ain't happening.
Now, if this insanity goes through and some absurd ineffectual physical wall is actually built, I fully expect all sorts of accounting gimmickry and mental gymnastics from the Trump administration to give them the ability to say that Mexico *indirectly* paid for it, that will almost certainly be the party line, but it will be the US taxpayer who foots the real bill.
That much is given. US tax payers will pay it and as usual main bulk goes to the poor and middle class.
Crazyterran wrote: Remember when signing executive orders was tyranny? Remember when alienating your allies was negative to world safety?
Hopefully Mexico tells the Americans right where they can stick it, and see what happens when glorious leader can't even bully Mexico into submission.
We declare war on them and seize northern Mexico? Or I should say the New North Mexico, soon to be South Texas?
So then you need to build the wall at your new border.
This from Jingo by Pratchett comes to mind:
You had a border and across the border came bandits. So you sent a force to quell the bandits, and in order to stamp them out you had to take over their country, and soon you had another restless little vassal state to rule. And now that had a border, over which came, sure as sunrise, a fresh lot of raiders. So your new tax-paying subjects were demanding protection from their brother raiders, neglecting to pay their taxes, and doing a little light banditry on the side. And so once again you stretched your forces, whether you wanted to or not....
He sighed. For the serious empire-builder there was no such thing as a final frontier. There was only another problem.
They don't really have a choice. Trump either wanted Mexico to foot the bill, and we could renegotiate NAFTA, or Mexico would withdraw from NAFTA and pay for it with tariffs. Implications aside, if he wants them to pay for it, they're going to pay for it.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: They don't really have a choice. Trump either wanted Mexico to foot the bill, and we could renegotiate NAFTA, or Mexico would withdraw from NAFTA and pay for it with tariffs. Implications aside, if he wants them to pay for it, they're going to pay for it.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: They don't really have a choice. Trump either wanted Mexico to foot the bill, and we could renegotiate NAFTA, or Mexico would withdraw from NAFTA and pay for it with tariffs. Implications aside, if he wants them to pay for it, they're going to pay for it.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: They don't really have a choice. Trump either wanted Mexico to foot the bill, and we could renegotiate NAFTA, or Mexico would withdraw from NAFTA and pay for it with tariffs. Implications aside, if he wants them to pay for it, they're going to pay for it.
No, they're not. You are.
Zero content response. Thanks for playing.
My response has as much content as your claim, if you want me to respond with more content then actually supply me with something to actually refute.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: They don't really have a choice. Trump either wanted Mexico to foot the bill, and we could renegotiate NAFTA, or Mexico would withdraw from NAFTA and pay for it with tariffs. Implications aside, if he wants them to pay for it, they're going to pay for it.
You don't pay what you can't pay. Period. You could claim I will have to pay 1,000,000 but there's no way I can pay it so I would not pay it.
He can try but he will fail. Mexico will suffer having to look to trade elsewhere but _less_ than if they tried to pay. In return US will be suffering so bad with economics with Trump at charge and paying for the wall out of their own pocket that 2020 when Trump will be out of office US will likely be begging Mexico to start trading again as US is desperately looking for new markets to recover from economical disaster Trump led US into.
They have a choice. And they will choose that and say "screw you" to Trump. It will hurt Mexico but it will hurt US more and it's less than 4 years of suffering.
As opposed to what? You're insightful analysis of Mexican politics?
My post didn't mention Mexican politics at all, because their options aren't set by THEIR politics. They have two options if they want to trade with us. They cannot replicate US demand anywhere else - we are the premier global consumer. End of story.
Arguing about this is pointless. We can add Mexico bending the knee to the mile-long list of things that libs claimed would never happen.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: They don't really have a choice. Trump either wanted Mexico to foot the bill, and we could renegotiate NAFTA, or Mexico would withdraw from NAFTA and pay for it with tariffs. Implications aside, if he wants them to pay for it, they're going to pay for it.
renogotiating Nafta would probably take longer than Trumps initial 4 years and is going to face stiff opposition from his Corporate pals, and tariff arguments would go before the WTO...and take yet more years to resolve and cause all sorts of havoc for exiting US business interests there that would have to be dismantled at great expense and not necessarily rebuilt in the US (or at all) anyway. There are a lot of domestic US companies that rely on cheap mexican labor for some things to stay competitive, and I can tell you very few people are going to wanna pay an extra $20 on a $40 gas valve for their AC just so Trump can build his wall. Mexico might end up losing big, but so would the US, and to nobody's actual real advantage.
If we're determined to build our own (almost certainly ineffectual) Berlin, er, Rio Grande, wall for domestic political reasons, using trade agreements to strongarm sovereign governments is going to go...poorly for all involved.
This is to say nothing of the years or decades of issues that will be involved in just starting construction, seizing private land on the border in order to build on it and the infrastructure to support it (roads, telecom, etc) and dealing with all those lawuits, planning phases, expanding the border patrol, etc. This is not something that's going to go down easy.
Frazzled wrote: MMM...compared to all the spending we do...ok big whup.
And when Mexico joins that block of South and Central American countries that consider the United States a hostile force?
Then they'll be at a disadvantage for access to the world largest consumer market?
Why wouldn't China trade with them?
China will likely be happy to find new trade partners. The economic growth there has been stalling a bit.
Question;
Which is better?
Trade with a hostile government run by a man who thinks half the country's problems are you're country's fault.
Trade with a non-hostile government the hostile government just shut out from trade and is ripe to be monopolized for your goods? Especially considering that in the short term the hostile government can't cut trade with you unless it wants to collapse into an economic black hole? In what world would you not tell the hostile government to feth off, initiate trade expansion with a desperate non-hostile government in a key strategic trade location, and work your way up to telling the hostile government where to shove it?
NuggzTheNinja wrote: They don't really have a choice. Trump either wanted Mexico to foot the bill, and we could renegotiate NAFTA, or Mexico would withdraw from NAFTA and pay for it with tariffs. Implications aside, if he wants them to pay for it, they're going to pay for it.
renogotiating Nafta would probably take longer than Trumps initial 4 years and is going to face stiff opposition from his Corporate pals, and tariff arguments would go before the WTO...and take yet more years to resolve and cause all sorts of havoc for exiting US business interests there that would have to be dismantled at great expense and not necessarily rebuilt in the US (or at all) anyway. There are a lot of domestic US companies that rely on cheap mexican labor for some things to stay competitive, and I can tell you very few people are going to wanna pay an extra $20 on a $40 gas valve for their AC just so Trump can build his wall. Mexico might end up losing big, but so would the US, and to nobody's actual real advantage.
If we're determined to build our own (almost certainly ineffectual) Berlin, er, Rio Grande, wall for domestic political reasons, using trade agreements to strongarm sovereign governments is going to go...poorly for all involved.
This is to say nothing of the years or decades of issues that will be involved in just starting construction, seizing private land on the border in order to build on it and the infrastructure to support it (roads, telecom, etc) and dealing with all those lawuits, planning phases, expanding the border patrol, etc. This is not something that's going to go down easy.
Not to mention that a renegotiation of NAFTA is not done with Mexico alone but will also involve Canada. Why would Canada wish for tariffs to be imposed on Mexico which will affect its ability to transfer goods through the US into Mexico? So now you have Trump trying to strong arm both of the USA's immediate neighbours just to build a wall which will do very little to solve the issue it is meant to.
I don't think anyone really appreciates a liberalized Association Health Plan (AHP) could do wonders.
For instance, think of all the employees at every Hospital/Medical Group in the US... that's a large number. Imagine they've all banded together to offer plans for their peeps, leveraging the buying power and that the actuary risks are spread out.
I don't think anyone really appreciates a liberalized Association Health Plan (AHP) could do wonders.
For instance, think of all the employees at every Hospital/Medical Group in the US... that's a large number. Imagine they've all banded together to offer plans for their peeps, leveraging the buying power and that the actuary risks are spread out.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Not to mention that a renegotiation of NAFTA is not done with Mexico alone but will also involve Canada. Why would Canada wish for tariffs to be imposed on Mexico which will affect its ability to transfer goods through the US into Mexico? So now you have Trump trying to strong arm both of the USA's immediate neighbours just to build a wall which will do very little to solve the issue it is meant to.
Good point
Trump sure knows how to piss off...Well pretty much everybody! Mexico, China, Iraq and could be making Canada less than happy soon and he has been doing work only 4 days.
I don't think anyone really appreciates a liberalized Association Health Plan (AHP) could do wonders.
For instance, think of all the employees at every Hospital/Medical Group in the US... that's a large number. Imagine they've all banded together to offer plans for their peeps, leveraging the buying power and that the actuary risks are spread out.
I wonder what Trump's reaction wil be when he finds out the Mexicans have air travel and can thus fly over the wall
What's the Spanish for 'stick your EO where the sun don't shine!'
Ironically, there was one American, for argument's sake let's call him George Patton, who made a good observation about man made barriers.
Something along the lines of mountains and seas being conquered, so anything built by man wouldn't stand a chance in comparison to mother nature.
But that was a time when America had leaders who knew what they were doing: FDR, Harry Truman, Cordell Hull, Eisenhower, Patton, General Marshall, who I rate highly, and so on and so on...
A Town Called Malus wrote: Remember when it was terrible that Planned Parenthood got millions of dollars of federal funding?
Yeah, but remember that Planned Parenthood murders babies for profit (and because feminists think it's fun to get pregnant and kill their babies). In fact, just this week I was at a Planned Parenthood and I overheard them celebrating another billion dollars in profit and planning their next marketing campaign to make sure that 200% of all women have paid for abortions. And let's not even get started on the ritutal torture of the dying babies, or the trophy skulls, or what obscene acts the people who buy dead babies do with those innocent little corpses...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I wonder what Trump's reaction wil be when he finds out the Mexicans have air travel and can thus fly over the wall
Yeah. How many of illegals come there by walking over desert anyway? Is US really so hard place to visit? How hard it would be for ME to go visit there if I was stupid enough to want to go there? And then(by some temporal insanity) decide to stay there?
Biggest issue would be simply feeding myself rather than getting there I think. Which is why better way to combat illegal immigration is to hunt down companies that employ them. Including funnily enough Trump himself
Ah. Implying that pork barrel spending to the tune of billions of dollars is now acceptable? But drain the swamp...
Remember when it was terrible that Planned Parenthood got millions of dollars of federal funding?
Maybe in Trump's books billion is less than million After all seems he thinks 63M is more than 65.8M so...
Very foolish words. You may think that Finland is under the radar on this one, but Trump sees all and hears all. Finland will suffer for that insult. Expect a Trump hotel to be heading your way!
I speak from experience, here in Scotland, when we blocked a Trump golf course, we had to fight off an army of lawyers. I'm not sure who won that. Lawyers are like zombies - they can come back at any time.
If it's an import tax... Doesn't that mean that um, the people in America are paying for it?
You will when clothing/bedding, appliances, cars, electronics, light bulbs (always found that one odd personally), tires, and jewelry go up in price... Right before all the American companies making stuff in Mexico go to some other country anyway, keep the price at the new "import tax" surcharge, and rake in all the big bucks from manufacturing in I don't know... Ecuador? Somewhere.
White House press secretary says border wall will be funded by 20 percent import tax on Mexican goods
yeah...good luck getting that through and not stuck in litigation forever or without painful repurcussions for US trade.
It's all well and good for them to just toss about the idea, Trump and his team have said...more than a few things they never intended to follow through on or that turned out to be outright lies, but making it practical reality is going to be...several orders of magnitude more difficult if they aren't just tossing out gimme quotes to satisfy the pavlovian ticks of the crazy base.
I'm sure GM, Ford, Honeywell, Carrier, and hundreds of others, not to mention consumers, are going to be thrilled.
And, ultimately, it will still be the US consumers and taxpayers paying for it as those costs are passed on. Huzzah!
White House press secretary says border wall will be funded by 20 percent import tax on Mexican goods
yeah...good luck getting that through and not stuck in litigation forever or without painful repurcussions for US trade.
It's all well and good for them to just toss about the idea, Trump and his team have said...more than a few things they never intended to follow through on or that turned out to be outright lies, but making it practical reality is going to be...several orders of magnitude more difficult if they aren't just tossing out gimme quotes to satisfy the pavlovian ticks of the crazy base.
I'm sure GM, Ford, Honeywell, Carrier, and hundreds of others, not to mention consumers, are going to be thrilled.
And, ultimately, it will still be the US consumers and taxpayers paying for it as those costs are passed on. Huzzah!
As I said earlier, to add insult to injury, the cement making companies best placed by location to the wall's proposed site are Mexican!
Bonus question: you'll never guess where the best labour pool is for constructing the wall?
Frazzled wrote: Why would they? Have you checked how they treat their own southern border situation?
Their southern border situation is a product on their policy relationship with the US.
Besides we could give a gak what they think. Keep their cartels out of our country.
Opposing the cartels is easier when the local government is nominally on our side, and less so when it decides we're the enemy.
Put the wall up and its irrelevant. Shoot down anything that comes over it around it or under it. Mexico is in the mi9ddle of a civil war, like they are every 30 years or so.
They are not our friends nor have they ever been.
White House press secretary says border wall will be funded by 20 percent import tax on Mexican goods
yeah...good luck getting that through and not stuck in litigation forever or without painful repurcussions for US trade.
It's all well and good for them to just toss about the idea, Trump and his team have said...more than a few things they never intended to follow through on or that turned out to be outright lies, but making it practical reality is going to be...several orders of magnitude more difficult if they aren't just tossing out gimme quotes to satisfy the pavlovian ticks of the crazy base.
I'm sure GM, Ford, Honeywell, Carrier, and hundreds of others, not to mention consumers, are going to be thrilled.
And, ultimately, it will still be the US consumers and taxpayers paying for it as those costs are passed on. Huzzah!
On the bright side, the President can't levy tariffs, and I don't see the Republicans backing it.
White House press secretary says border wall will be funded by 20 percent import tax on Mexican goods
yeah...good luck getting that through and not stuck in litigation forever or without painful repurcussions for US trade.
It's all well and good for them to just toss about the idea, Trump and his team have said...more than a few things they never intended to follow through on or that turned out to be outright lies, but making it practical reality is going to be...several orders of magnitude more difficult if they aren't just tossing out gimme quotes to satisfy the pavlovian ticks of the crazy base.
I'm sure GM, Ford, Honeywell, Carrier, and hundreds of others, not to mention consumers, are going to be thrilled.
And, ultimately, it will still be the US consumers and taxpayers paying for it as those costs are passed on. Huzzah!
As I said earlier, to add insult to injury, the cement making companies best placed by location to the wall's proposed site are Mexican!
Bonus question: you'll never guess where the best labour pool is for constructing the wall?
Yes Cemex, convicted of dumping (pardon the pun) cement on US markets. Whats that great big sucking sound? oh yea US jobs. I remember.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I wonder what Trump's reaction wil be when he finds out the Mexicans have air travel and can thus fly over the wall
Yeah. How many of illegals come there by walking over desert anyway? Is US really so hard place to visit? How hard it would be for ME to go visit there if I was stupid enough to want to go there? And then(by some temporal insanity) decide to stay there?
Biggest issue would be simply feeding myself rather than getting there I think. Which is why better way to combat illegal immigration is to hunt down companies that employ them. Including funnily enough Trump himself
A few years back, a friend of mine was an illegal alien in the USA, having out stayed his visa.
His rational was: I'm British, you're American, together we beat the Germans. I can stay here for as long as I want, right?
White House press secretary says border wall will be funded by 20 percent import tax on Mexican goods
yeah...good luck getting that through and not stuck in litigation forever or without painful repurcussions for US trade.
It's all well and good for them to just toss about the idea, Trump and his team have said...more than a few things they never intended to follow through on or that turned out to be outright lies, but making it practical reality is going to be...several orders of magnitude more difficult if they aren't just tossing out gimme quotes to satisfy the pavlovian ticks of the crazy base.
I'm sure GM, Ford, Honeywell, Carrier, and hundreds of others, not to mention consumers, are going to be thrilled.
And, ultimately, it will still be the US consumers and taxpayers paying for it as those costs are passed on. Huzzah!
As I said earlier, to add insult to injury, the cement making companies best placed by location to the wall's proposed site are Mexican!
Bonus question: you'll never guess where the best labour pool is for constructing the wall?
Yes Cemex, convicted of dumping (pardon the pun) cement on US markets. Whats that great big sucking sound? oh yea US jobs. I remember.
you make it sound like the economic exploitation is one sided...and that those jobs either werent going to wither away in the first place or that there's some chance of them ever coming back, none of which is necessarily true.
I'm sure that's a great comfort for the thousands of Mexican police who've died fighting our drug war.
I literally don't care. Take back their cartels and get their criminals out of my country.
Have perspective guys...
Texas is having a knarly time with the cartel bidness and illegal aliens problems...
True, but when Houston and Dallas are prime markets for those who sell the old Columbian marching powder, then Texas is technically contributing to its own problems.
Wonder what Trump says when Mexico says "no" and wall is half built 
/https%3A%2F%2Fblueprint-api-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Fcard%2Fimage%2F361386%2Fb72e8a38-b0fe-418e-8230-ed3645c76566.jpg)
wall. 
