Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

In fairness, although it can certainly be debated how many people are in support of spending $20bn on a wall, I would think there is a substantial number who would be favour of putting that $20bn into CBP to tighten the border whatever way it happens. That still makes a DACA trade/quid-pro-quo relevant and supportable.

How many would vote for that if they were given the choice of that 20bn going towards ACA or Medicare Medicaid.

Or if they were told these were to be plundered to pay for this fictitious terrorism blocker wall

FatherTed

From "preventing" to Opamacare to clean coal to the only crimes being committed are by latino immigrants, the SOTU is quite the shyt show. He wants to ban family reunification immigration. Pity it wasn't done a few years ago:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/01/29/how-chain-migration-brought-us-the-trump-white-house

Herb Powell

Just watched most of the State of the Uniom (sic) Address.

How it managed to be worse than I expected, I don't know.

"USA! USA!" chants..........................like actual, not in a comedy film or sporting event, real chants...........

Manic Moran

listermint wrote: »

How many would vote for that if they were given the choice of that 20bn going towards ACA or Medicare Medicaid.

Or if they were told these were to be plundered to pay for this fictitious terrorism blocker wall

The federal government forks over about a trillion dollars in healthcare spending a year. A third of that goes on Medicare. $20bn isn't going to make a particular dent, the solutions to those require something more than throwing a few more denarii at the problem. Border security is about $4bn/year. $20bn, especially if split up over, say, the next three years, will make a very noticeable increase in capability to CBP.

With talk of a $1.5trn infrastructure plan in his speech, I don't think anyone's going to be sweating over where $20bn for the border is going to come from. Unless, perhaps, it's construction jobs coming from the wall, which does count as infrastructure, I guess.

dogbert27

Christy42 wrote: »

Trump got elected to avoid Hillary getting into power. There is only so much of a mandate he can claim from a slim victory against an opponent who was deeply unpopular (the most unpopular pair to go for the position). This is also why the American system does not vote in a dictator for 4 years each time. It has representatives from across the country who seem less willing to put up a wall. Many of them did not campaign on the policy of a wall or even campaigned that Trump's wall was a bad idea, would you ignore all their voters?

Remember that they are up for election next and have to satisfy the voters. They have to be able to influence proceedings as to how they think voters will treat them in 10 months time (hence why polls tend to be relevant at this point in time). Trump winning the election does not mean whatever he promised before the election has to happen. Otherwise we would have seen much less opposition to Barack attempting to close Guantanamo Bay. It was something Obama had campaigned on but faced political opposition from others on. The wall is the same thing (well a much worse idea but you get the point).

Clinton actually won the popular vote. She lost the college which is the one that matters

Christy42

dogbert27 wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

Trump got elected to avoid Hillary getting into power. There is only so much of a mandate he can claim from a slim victory against an opponent who was deeply unpopular (the most unpopular pair to go for the position). This is also why the American system does not vote in a dictator for 4 years each time. It has representatives from across the country who seem less willing to put up a wall. Many of them did not campaign on the policy of a wall or even campaigned that Trump's wall was a bad idea, would you ignore all their voters?

Remember that they are up for election next and have to satisfy the voters. They have to be able to influence proceedings as to how they think voters will treat them in 10 months time (hence why polls tend to be relevant at this point in time). Trump winning the election does not mean whatever he promised before the election has to happen. Otherwise we would have seen much less opposition to Barack attempting to close Guantanamo Bay. It was something Obama had campaigned on but faced political opposition from others on. The wall is the same thing (well a much worse idea but you get the point).

Clinton actually won the popular vote. She lost the college which is the one that matters

I am well aware of this fact. The point of a mandate is that if Trump had won by a large margin politicians could support him safe in the knowledge he would help their poll numbers come November. As is supporting him is no better than 50:50 for helping their vote count in a few months (though it depends on location and demographics).

It hurts what he can do politically as you could see from the health vote several months back as he failed to stop rebellions from various sects in his party.

I am well aware of how the president of the US is elected. There is no need to remind me of this. I am discussing the effects of being unpopular has on a president. Not whether or not he won which we have all agreed he has. Electoral vote is more important but vote count still has real world effects.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

He also got elected on the assertion - repeated loudly and often - that Mexico would pay for the wall. For anyone to defend him shafting Dreamers until the American taxpayer coughs up for the wall on the basis of fulfilling an electoral promise... well, I guess nothing's surprising anymore, but that doesn't make it any less hard to swallow.

Yes, but I think everyone knew that it was "pie in the sky" kind of assertion in the sense that it was never going to be literally true.

In the long run the transfer of jobs and industry back to the US from Mexico could indirectly be said to make it true. It is a fact that Trump has been successful at reversing the trend for US companies to relocate abroad, and also at repatriating some jobs, and also the taxes/profits of certain big corporations.

In the short term though, the federal govt. must stump up the cash.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

Yes, but I think everyone knew that it was "pie in the sky" kind of assertion in the sense that it was never going to be literally true.

You say that as if it makes it a better justification for supporting him.

"Of course I'm not going to criticise the President for not fulfilling his campaign promises; I knew they were lies when I voted for him."

Professor Moriarty

recedite wrote: »

Yes, but I think everyone knew that it was "pie in the sky" kind of assertion in
the sense that it was never going to be literally true.

So he's not going to build the wall and the Mexicans won't pay for it? But last night you said this:

"...he was elected on a political policy platform, one which has not fundamentally changed since he became president.
That in itself is unusual; a politician who actually tries to keep an election promise. It has surprised a lot of people."

So what are you trying to say?

In the long run the transfer of jobs and industry back to the US from Mexico
could indirectly be said to make it true. It is a fact that Trump has been
successful at reversing the trend for US companies to relocate abroad, and also
at repatriating some jobs, and also the taxes/profits of certain big
corporations.

In the short term though, the federal govt. must stump up
the cash

Perhaps. It remains to be seen. But what Trump and his billionaire cronies aren't telling you is that protectionism cuts both ways. You can be certain that it will be Trump and the swamp dwellers who will profit most from cherry picking protectionist policies. But I doubt that many of his supporters are capable of understanding that. And that doesn't even take into account the serious damage to America's image across the planet and how isolationism is ceding influence to China, Russia, the EU etc. The driving force behind Trump is his narcissism and his greed. If you think Joe Soap matters to The Donald then you are deluding yourself.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

"Of course I'm not going to criticise the President for not fulfilling his campaign promises; I knew they were lies when I voted for him."

I would never criticise a politician for not fulfilling his campaign promises.
I'd criticise them for not trying to fulfill the campaign promise. Trump is still trying.
One Trump promise was to tighten up security at the mexican border in order to reduce illegal imigration and narco smuggling.
Reasonable people knew "The wall" could be made of concrete, or steel, or be a virtual barrier of patrols and electronic surveillance, or an ongoing policy of picking up and deporting illegal immigrants after they have sneaked in, and a policy of seizing whatever drugs get through. Or a combination of all of the above.

Leroy42

recedite wrote: »

Yes, but I think everyone knew that it was "pie in the sky" kind of assertion in the sense that it was never going to be literally true.

In the long run the transfer of jobs and industry back to the US from Mexico could indirectly be said to make it true. It is a fact that Trump has been successful at reversing the trend for US companies to relocate abroad, and also at repatriating some jobs, and also the taxes/profits of certain big corporations.

In the short term though, the federal govt. must stump up the cash.

But couldn't you take that with everything he (and other) politicians say. So you want him to hold dreamers hostage to get funding for the wall based on that was the promise he made, but at the same time letting him off the promise he made that Mexico would pay for it.

Why doesn't he do what he promised and build the wall based on the funds he receives from Mexico, dreamers are not related to it at all.

If he can't get funds from Mexico then he shouldn't build the wall, he has failed in his promise. Instead he wants to get the American people to pay for it, to cover up for his failure to deliver the deal, and he is using the dreamers as the powerplay.

recedite

Leroy42 wrote: »

..he is using the dreamers as the powerplay.

Yes he is. But that is politics for you.

Schorpio

recedite wrote: »

I would never criticise a politician for not fulfilling his campaign promises.
I'd criticise them for not trying to fulfill the campaign promise. Trump is still trying.
One Trump promise was to tighten up security at the mexican border in order to reduce illegal imigration and narco smuggling.
Reasonable people knew "The wall" could be made of concrete, or steel, or be a virtual barrier of patrols and electronic surveillance, or an ongoing policy of picking up and deporting illegal immigrants after they have sneaked in, and a policy of seizing whatever drugs get through. Or a combination of all of the above.

But Trump never said that he would TRY to build the wall, he said that WOULD build the wall.

I really don't understand when Trump gets a pass for promising to do something virtually impossible, making a vague attempt at it, and ultimately failing.

It's like me getting elected on the promise that I will win the Euromillions and feed the money back into the economy. When I inevitably don't win, I can say 'Oh well, I bought a ticket. I tried.', and my voters will be fine with that?

I'd also like to understand what a 'big, beautiful' virtual wall looks like?

demfad

Yesterday CIA chief Mike Pompeo announced that the Russians will certainly interfere with the 2018 and 2020 elections.

Yesterday president Trump also announced that sanctions on Russian individuals for actually interfering in the 2016 election would not be imposed: they had learned their lesson.

Leroy42

recedite wrote: »

Yes he is. But that is politics for you.

YEs, I know that, but you are the one totting that the reason he is doing it is because he promised it and its nice to see a politician stick to his promise.

I am merely pointing out how selective you are being in your position and to simply state, "that's politics" shows how insincere your position actually is.

You don't care what he promised.

recedite

Schorpio wrote: »

..and ultimately failing.

He's not finished yet :pac:
He's only just getting warmed up.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

Reasonable people knew "The wall" could be made of concrete, or steel, or be a virtual barrier of patrols and electronic surveillance, or an ongoing policy of picking up and deporting illegal immigrants after they have sneaked in, and a policy of seizing whatever drugs get through. Or a combination of all of the above.

Maybe "reasonable people" knew that, but candidate Trump "knew" it was going to be made out of "hardened concrete, and rebar, and steel" and that it would be between 30 and 65 feet high.

Schorpio

recedite wrote: »

He's not finished yet :pac:
He's only just getting warmed up.

That's a fair point, but you said -

I would never criticise a politician for not fulfilling his campaign promises.
I'd criticise them for not trying to fulfill the campaign promise. Trump is still trying.

Unless my English is terrible, I believe that means that you wouldn't criticise Trump if he did fail, as long as he made an attempt? So it's a moot point whether or not he has actually failed yet.

Let me ask you some questions - if politicians are at liberty to promise the undeliverable during elections, but get a pass for trying, how can we hold those politicans accountable? How do you believe what anyone says during a campaign? How do you cast an informed vote in the hope of making your life better?

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

Trump "knew" it was going to be made out of "hardened concrete, and rebar, and steel"

Like this?

Leroy42

It is funny that when people were questioned about Trumps clearly racist remarks during the campaign, and the implication that they were racists themselves, many of the them would state that they were voting for Trump mainly because they couldn't vote for HC.

Now it seems people are calling for Trump to keep his promises so which is it Recedite? Did you agree with everything that Trump stated during the campaign? As that is the implication of your position that the wall must be built, and it is legitimate to hold dreamers hostage to that, since that he what he promised.

Before you answer, please have an answer as to why he didn't repeal ObamaCare on the 1st day and why he never got around to declaring China a currency manipulator.

recedite

Schorpio wrote: »

Unless my English is terrible, I believe that means that you wouldn't criticise Trump if he did fail, as long as he made an attempt? So it's a moot point whether or not he has actually failed yet.

Exactly.

Schorpio wrote: »

Let me ask you some questions - if politicians are at liberty to promise the undeliverable during elections, but get a pass for trying, how can we hold those politicans accountable? How do you believe what anyone says during a campaign? How do you cast an informed vote in the hope of making your life better?

Its up to the individual whether they think a promise is "deliverable". Almost anything is possible if a whole nation pulls together, but inevitably most projects will be stymied by division, and opposition, and lobbying, from within.

IMO all the individual voter can do is try to judge which politician is pulling in their preferred direction, and then you give them your vote. You don't have to believe that all the promises will come true, but you have a right to expect that the politician will try to proceed in that general direction after the election.

Professor Moriarty

recedite wrote: »

Like this?

The Donald has said his wall will be over 1,000 miles long. Which is 1,760,000 feet.

Your picture shows a 1500 feet long wall from 2009. How much did that cost? How effective has it been? What are the maintenance costs? What were the land acquisition costs? What were the legal costs?

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

Like this?

You know, you really ought to pick a defensive strategy and stick with it. Flopping within the space of a couple of posts from "we always knew Trump was a delusional liar" to "he's fulfilling his promises" is a bit weird.

FreudianSlippers

oscarBravo wrote: »

You know, you really ought to pick a defensive strategy and stick with it. Flopping within the space of a couple of posts from "we always knew Trump was a delusional liar" to "he's fulfilling his promises" is a bit weird.

It's like Hannity from the other night! lol

recedite

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Your picture shows a 1500 feet long wall from 2009. How much did that cost? How effective has it been? What are the maintenance costs? What were the land acquisition costs? What were the legal costs?

No idea.
What are the costs of dealing with narcotics after they get inside the US?

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

You know, you really ought to pick a defensive strategy and stick with it. Flopping within the space of a couple of posts from "we always knew Trump was a delusional liar" to "he's fulfilling his promises" is a bit weird.

There is already a barrier, part concrete and rebar, part steel fence, partly open but patrolled, and partly just open.

The whole thing needs beefing up. Whats so hard to understand?

As for what happens when people evade the barrier, there is ICE and there is the DEA. But also there are the "sanctuary cities".

Professor Moriarty

recedite wrote: »

No idea.
What are the costs of dealing with narcotics after they get inside the US?

Has The Donald promised to reduce the cost of narcotics as well? If not, why not answer the question?

Professor Moriarty

recedite wrote: »

There is already a barrier, part concrete and rebar, part steel fence, partly open but patrolled, and partly just open.

The whole thing needs beefing up. Whats so hard to understand?

As for what happens when people evade the barrier, there is ICE and there is the DEA. But also there are the "sanctuary cities".

1,000+ miles.

Leroy42

recedite wrote: »

No idea.
What are the costs of dealing with narcotics after they get inside the US?

A very good question. What is the cost? And what is the cost is maintaining the current border and how much will it cost to build a wall and maintain that?

These are exactly the type of questions that Trump should have the answers to. Having looked at the actual problem and coming up with a plan that minimises costs whilst maximising the benefit.

It seems to me to be a total lack of any cost/benefit being done. There is plenty of vague statements about illegals flooding over the border, about rampant drugs etc.

But the first question is will this stop/reduce that and is the cost worth it. How many illegals, for example, come in via alternative ways than simply across the border (planes etc).

In terms of the drugs problem, it seems that despite bns being spent over the years the problem is as bad as ever, and as we see from the opioid crisis simply cutting off one route will unlikely actually remedy the problem, merely shift it.

Water John

Will a wall stop narcotics getting into USA? That's like prohibition, nearly 100 years ago, delusional.