Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

SoundsRight

People are missing the point. He promised to build a wall. Now he's keeping his word. Imagine that! A politician who delivers on his word.

If just one American life is saved because some scumbag was prevented from entering the country illegaly, it'll be worth it.

pixelburp

SoundsRight wrote: »

People are missing the point. He promised to build a wall. Now he's keeping his word. Imagine that! A politician who delivers on his word.

If just one American life is saved because some scumbag was prevented from entering the country illegaly, it'll be worth it.

He isn't delivering though; if he was truly keeping his word the wall would have started in the TWO YEARS the republicans had control of government. Instead it's suddenly an emergency. And if he's keeping his word, why is Clinton not in jail? Why are the taxpayer paying for something be promised Mexico would pay for? Are NATO allies spending more? Does everyone now have medical insurance? Etc etc.

If you want American lives saved, then tackle the opiod crisis with sensible legislation to address the addictions caused by prescription abuse; increase spending on better checks and systems at ports of entry. Better relations with your neighbours so cross border initiatives can catch folks earlier

A ruddy big wall is a stupid idea. It's showy and will serve no purpose except to drive sales of ladders and shovels.

rossie1977

He promised to build wall and that Mexico would pay for it. That's a huge difference given now he will have to divert emergency funds for Puerto Rico and California to the project

looksee

SoundsRight wrote: »

People are missing the point. He promised to build a wall. Now he's keeping his word. Imagine that! A politician who delivers on his word.

If just one American life is saved because some scumbag was prevented from entering the country illegaly, it'll be worth it.

He could have promised to put another person on the moon, which would have been just as useful as building a wall across a continent, how much disarray and confusion would it have been worth for him to 'keep his word'? He promised lots of things that he has not delivered on, it just happens that this is the last one he thinks he has any hope of seeing through.

And as someone said yesterday, he is already claiming that he is 'building a wall' with mystery money he has access to. If people believe that nonsense then he does not actually have to build anything, he just goes to his rallies and tells people the wall is built. He will claim to have kept his word, and his followers will believe him. And while there is a hard core of people who will believe anything he says, there will not, thank goodness, be enough to re-elect him.

The only consolation is that while he is pursuing this nonsense he is not poking bears and claiming his red button is the biggest.

duploelabs

SoundsRight wrote: »

People are missing the point. He promised to build a wall. Now he's keeping his word. Imagine that! A politician who delivers on his word.

If just one American life is saved because some scumbag was prevented from entering the country illegaly, it'll be worth it.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

He had two years controlling both houses before the midterms and he couldn't even do it then....
How's he doing on those other election promises like draining the swamp and locking her up?

frag420

SoundsRight wrote: »

People are missing the point. He promised to build a wall. Now he's keeping his word. Imagine that! A politician who delivers on his word.

If just one American life is saved because some scumbag was prevented from entering the country illegaly, it'll be worth it.

Would an outright ban on guns that would surely save a lot more than one Americans life be worth it too?

aloyisious

StringerBell wrote: »

How exactly does one declare something an emergency, while also stating, publicly, that it isn't something he needed to do, that he could have done it over a longer period of time?

The courts should be fun, not to mention the amusement from Republicans who get stuck in the position of having to justify why it's ok money is taken from their constituency

Sometimes I get the notion that Don is not flying by the seat of his pants every time something pops up on his horizon (despite what people , incl me, sometimes logically imagine) but that that is actually his personal M/O in life, he plans on things popping up to get along. It sound's confounding as a masterplan but he's survived in public life - after a fashion - for decades now. I can't help but wonder at times does he actually care about what Ann Coulter & her like-minded persons thinks about him, given how it seems his world is egocentric.

As for the courts, well, its been a theory here that he's been stacking the decks there as a long-term plan and he won't be footing the court-action bill as president.

relax carry on

SoundsRight wrote: »

His point was that he ought to have bipartisan support to secure the nation's borders. He shouldn't have to resort to drastic measures to do something that protects American citizens.

And he's not going to have to defend it in court; it's going ahead.

Why is it that Trump supporters always need to clarify what Trump means? He is supposed to be this consummate negotiator which would include the ability to communicate clearly and effectively.

jochenstacker

SoundsRight wrote: »

His point was that he ought to have bipartisan support to secure the nation's borders. He shouldn't have to resort to drastic measures to do something that protects American citizens.

And he's not going to have to defend it in court; it's going ahead.

I am going to save these words in a little doggy bag for later consumption.
Would sir like ketchup or mayonnaise with that?
Wanna bet Would you feel confident to put €1000 in the hat?
Still feeling confident boyo?

rossie1977

Brian? wrote: »

You need to detach from infowars for a bit. AOC would probably align with Fine Gael, she’s hardly a Marxist.

It's complete nonsense anyway. The project required that NYC would pay $3 billion for Amazon to setup and the idea was that the jobs created by Amazon would create tax revenue.

Problem is Amazon doesn't actually pay any federal income taxes. In 2018 amazon reported profits of $11.2 billion. Instead of paying the statutory 21% income tax in 2018 they received $129 million from federal tax rebate.

That's AOCs issue with the project and she is spot on. Giant corporations in the US (and here in Ireland) are milking the system dry.

listermint

frag420 wrote: »

Would an outright ban on guns that would surely save a lot more than one Americans life be worth it too?

40 k plus life's per year.....

amandstu

Is there an offense corresponding to wasting police time for the court system?

Trump is anticipating losses in the lower courts prior to "hopefully" a success in the SC.

If he loses there he will have incurred taxpayer expenses running into the millions when anyone can tell him that this is not a course he should be following in the first place.

Is there not a more appropriate method to change the constitution if that is what he is proposing? (increased power for the president at the expense of Congress')

looksee

If they have any sense at all there will be an urgent drive to reduce the powers of the president once Trump is removed from the position - and the equivalent of a vote of no confidence also.

Ultros

frag420 wrote: »

Would an outright ban on guns that would surely save a lot more than one Americans life be worth it too?

I think banning high capacity automatic weapons should be looked it, an outright ban of all guns will never happen. The whole point of the second amendment is for people to protect themselves from tyrannical governments, which to some might sound very silly but overall history paints a different picture of how fast things can turn sour.

You need to detach from infowars for a bit. AOC would probably align with Fine Gael, she’s hardly a Marxist.

Cortez and her ilk - she and her advisors lied about having the line “economic security to all who are unwilling to work" on her website in the initial "green deal" draft. They blamed it on a doctored version Republicans circulated before walking it back. Marxist not but she's on the extreme end.

amandstu

looksee wrote: »

If they have any sense at all there will be an urgent drive to reduce the powers of the president once Trump is removed from the position - and the equivalent of a vote of no confidence also.

Does that process have to wait till then?

Cannot either House make proposals along those lines even if he is still in office?

Even if he refuses to sign them it may be a worthwhile exercise..

amandstu

I know the mods don't want Trump jokes in this thread .but this is well written,comprehensive and ,it seems to me
accurate;

"Nate White Hilariously Answers the Query –”Why Do British People NOT Like Trump?"

https://worldofwonder.net/quora-nate-white-hilariously-answers-the-query-why-do-british-people-not-like-trump/

StringerBell

SoundsRight wrote: »

His point was that he ought to have bipartisan support to secure the nation's borders. He shouldn't have to resort to drastic measures to do something that protects American citizens.

And he's not going to have to defend it in court; it's going ahead.

Well, that's obviously wrong so there's hardly any point in me deconstructing that piece by piece.

StringerBell

batgoat wrote: »

I do think it dragging on for two years probably benefits Trump. Can just use it as supposed proof of commitment.

Absolutely, the wall was a massive part of his campaign. No surprise he would try to use it again, his base aren't exactly the type to critically think

Muahahaha

SoundsRight wrote: »

Berlin Wall, Great Wall of China, Hadrian's Wall, Walls of Derry, Belfast's Peace Walls....You think these were just built for the craic?

If you lived close to drug smugglers and human traffickers, I'd imagine you'd want some barrier between you.

Well firstly it is not a wall, it is a fence. And as has been already pointed out it is pretty easy to pass drugs through a fence. And if you think it is going to stop human traffickers then you are deluded. A Mexican politican has already climbed the existing barrier, I doubt it will be much of a problem for organised human trafficking gangs with ropes and ladders.

In any case we all know that illegal immigration and drugs trafficking is happening mainly at legal ports of entry, should Trump build walls around all the airports too? Because thats where the logic of this border wall ends up.

BabyCheeses

SoundsRight wrote: »

His point was that he ought to have bipartisan support to secure the nation's borders. He shouldn't have to resort to drastic measures to do something that protects American citizens.

And he's not going to have to defend it in court; it's going ahead.

He didn't need bipartisan support. He had two years where he couldn't even convince his own party. Trump is unable to convince the republican party to reduce illegal immigration. So much for the art of the deal.

duploelabs

BabyCheeses wrote: »

He didn't need bipartisan support. He had two years where he couldn't even convince his own party. Trump is unable to convince the republican party to reduce illegal immigration. So much for the art of the deal.

He's no deal maker. Can't even convince his own party to build the wall when they'd control of both houses.

He's no builder (as often claimed by him). No actual wall has been built.

I'm starting to think he's no billionaire either considering his reluctance to publish his tax returns

martingriff

This is the only time I will say this but this was genius by Trump. He knew if he called this during the shutdown it would have continued and he would get it in droves. Now the shutdown is over people are getting there wages and Medicare he will only get what he normally does in anger.

Of course I do not see this wall been built or close to starting before the election so is hoping this will help in been elected. Even then with court cases trying to get the land off who own it this will cause many times of what he states now.

Can both houses overrule him by a vote. Is there a time limit to how long he can state an emergency.

Manic Moran

rossie1977 wrote: »

It's complete nonsense anyway. The project required that NYC would pay $3 billion for Amazon to setup and the idea was that the jobs created by Amazon would create tax revenue.

Problem is Amazon doesn't actually pay any federal income taxes. In 2018 amazon reported profits of $11.2 billion. Instead of paying the statutory 21% income tax in 2018 they received $129 million from federal tax rebate.

That's AOCs issue with the project and she is spot on. Giant corporations in the US (and here in Ireland) are milking the system dry.

You are making the same mistake AOC made. Most of that $3bn comes in discounts off of taxes which are not going to come in. The overall benefit to the local economy was estimated to be over $25bn over the next 20 years, and not just purely from income taxes of employees. Even the problem of gentrification (one of the actual legitimate concerns she and others had) would still result in higher property taxes from anyone who bought a house in the area. Maybe they are milking the system, it's business. The problem is that the reality is that the choice is not 'no tax breaks or tax breaks', it's 'tax breaks, or the jobs go somewhere else.' Well, the jobs went somewhere else. NYC is not going to fall apart as a result, no. But it's not going to get a single extra penny in disposable money, and no new jobs will be created either.

They did not lose out on billions in revenue as they were probably going to spend more money to get them in, the income tax from the employees would be the only gain from moving the site there. AOC's issue was this would raise the cost of living there, meaning locals would be moved out from their neighbourhoods due to gentrification. John Oliver did a great piece on this last year some time. Corporations move states all the time to get better deals and end up costing the area more money than they gain, the local politician looks good because they bring in jobs but the net result is a negative. Just another example of how AOC is misrepresented on the right. I see the meme campaign going strong against her with photos of her along with ridiculous quotes she never said. In few years time it will etched into peoples brains that she is ditsy like the decades of smears against HC that were not based anywhere in reality.

Misrepresented on the right?! Even Democrats are lashing out at the torpedoing of the deal, to include the Mayor and Governor. The panels are slating it not only on Fox, but on NBC and CBS. The polling in NYC was heavily in favour of the deal, even though the respondents were aware of the downsides. Has Ireland paid more than it benefited from its tax incentives to bring big businesses into the country? That -some- places lose out does not mean that they all must.

The polls are incredibly against you on this manic

Find me any poll which shows a majority of NYC folks to be against the Amazon deal. In the national scale, yes, Trump is way behind and has an almost impossible mountain to climb. Democrats need to stop giving him legs up and boosts to make it a closer playing field. They, again, are failing to see the types of candidates and policies which won the house seats away from Republicans last election, and are going back to the hammering for policies which did not. It's the Democrats' election to lose. They're going to look like right idiots if they somehow manage to lose it again.

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

You are making the same mistake AOC made. Most of that $3bn comes in discounts off of taxes which are not going to come in. The overall benefit to the local economy was estimated to be over $25bn over the next 20 years, and not just purely from income taxes of employees. Even the problem of gentrification (one of the actual legitimate concerns she and others had) would still result in higher property taxes from anyone who bought a house in the area. Maybe they are milking the system, it's business. The problem is that the reality is that the choice is not 'no tax breaks or tax breaks', it's 'tax breaks, or the jobs go somewhere else.' Well, the jobs went somewhere else. NYC is not going to fall apart as a result, no. But it's not going to get a single extra penny in disposable money, and no new jobs will be created either.



Misrepresented on the right?! Even Democrats are lashing out at the torpedoing of the deal, to include the Mayor and Governor. The panels are slating it not only on Fox, but on NBC and CBS. The polling in NYC was heavily in favour of the deal, even though the respondents were aware of the downsides. Has Ireland paid more than it benefited from its tax incentives to bring big businesses into the country? That -some- places lose out does not mean that they all must.



Find me any poll which shows a majority of NYC folks to be against the Amazon deal. In the national scale, yes, Trump is way behind and has an almost impossible mountain to climb. Democrats need to stop giving him legs up and boosts to make it a closer playing field. They, again, are failing to see the types of candidates and policies which won the house seats away from Republicans last election, and are going back to the hammering for policies which did not. It's the Democrats' election to lose. They're going to look like right idiots if they somehow manage to lose it again.

Oh they won't. The green deal has the traction it needs.

Amazon has come out of this mess very poorly. I actually don't see how you think they don't ??

And working people don't want nor need more gentrification . That's part of the problem, it's the reason. Why people have to work three jobs. I'm beginning to think you've had a rather cosseted existence versus the people that voted AOC in.

And your reading too much republican focused press.
You are a republican after all regardless of which way you pretend to lean. It's evident.

Franz Von Peppercorn

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

This emergency thingie is going to backfire spectacularly on Republicans

Come next year when military come looking for their billions, Democrats can claim that the military has more than enough money as evidenced by them building walls for no good reason.
Come next democrat president i hope he declares an emergency next time there is an armed massacre and do something about insane gun laws of theirs

The democrats will never not give money to the army. Anymore than the republicans.

Franz Von Peppercorn

listermint wrote: »

Oh they won't. The green deal has the traction it needs.

Amazon has come out of this mess very poorly. I actually don't see how you think they don't ??

And working people don't want nor need more gentrification . That's part of the problem, it's the reason. Why people have to work three jobs. I'm beginning to think you've had a rather cosseted existence versus the people that voted AOC in.

And your reading too much republican focused press.
You are a republican after all regardless of which way you pretend to lean. It's evident.

70% of New Yorkers supported amazon moving in, to be fair.

listermint

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

70% of New Yorkers supported amazon moving in, to be fair.

When did I talk about who supported Amazon into new york I didn't and I haven't.

I'm taking about corporate tax breaks .

The Amazon deal was a joke anyway. New York building their entire factory and giving them 3 billion in tax breaks. Crazy stuff

This is more in a litany of stuff that as American the way it is today .

Franz Von Peppercorn

listermint wrote: »

When did I talk about who supported Amazon into new york I didn't and I haven't.

I'm taking about corporate tax breaks .

The Amazon deal was a joke anyway. New York building their entire factory and giving them 3 billion in tax breaks. Crazy stuff

This is more in a litany of stuff that as American the way it is today .

You said working people didn’t need more gentrification. I assume that some of the 70% are working people.

The $3Bn is tax rebates. Presumably local not federal taxes.

I don’t think though that this will harm democrats or help Republicans. It’s a fairly local issue.

martingriff

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The democrats will never not give money to the army. Anymore than the republicans.

More than likely not but now they have a reason

listermint

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

You said working people didn’t need more gentrification. I assume that some of the 70% are working people.

The $3Bn is tax rebates. Presumably local not federal taxes.

I don’t think though that this will harm democrats or help Republicans. It’s a fairly local issue.

I did say people don't need gentrification. I stand by it. It pushes working people out of areas. That's what it does and makes money for property speculators.

Amazon would gentrify the area and provide a vast amount of low paying jobs and a small amount for high paying ones.

We have clear statistics of the tax payer subsidising this type of work through social assistances. That's not right. That's never right.

Can you imagine the Irish tax payer giving food and stamps to intel employees for example.