Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

Oafley Jones

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why are you claiming it will only cost $25bn? Where is that number coming from?

Trump originally stated it would cost $4bn, then $5, $6, etc all the way to $25bn. But what will cost $25bn? Concrete, steel, the entire border, parts of the border? What about maintenance?

The key issue is why would anybody believe that this project is going to 'only' cost $25bn?

The most conservative estimate I’ve seen thrown around is 50 billion for construction, and that’s with ideal conditions.

That’s not counting the inevitable countless lawsuits from just the landowners. Let’s not forget about the ecological damage, how floodplains will be impacted, migratory patterns for animals etc. etc.

And let’s not anyone kid themselves that this money is going to the communities, this is going straight to the usual contractors who will see that 50billion seem like peanuts.

Eg.
https://twitter.com/randyresist/status/1083463907321077761?s=21

Oafley Jones

Oafley Jones wrote: »

That’s not counting the inevitable countless lawsuits from just the landowners. Let’s not forget about the ecological damage, how floodplains will be impacted, migratory patterns for animals etc. etc.

I doubt that Trump or his fans give two ****s about any of that.

salmocab

I know it’s all pie in the sky but I find it hard to believe that the wall could be funded, designed,go through the legalities and built in 6 years (which would be his second term). It’s a massive undertaking and before it’s finished it would already have holes in it, ladders and ropes over it and tunnels under it.

Akrasia

salmocab wrote: »

I know it’s all pie in the sky but I find it hard to believe that the wall could be funded, designed,go through the legalities and built in 6 years (which would be his second term). It’s a massive undertaking and before it’s finished it would already have holes in it, ladders and ropes over it and tunnels under it.

What Trump really needs is 2 walls, about a hundred feet apart, and in between them, lets call it 'No persons land' there needs to be a combination of land mines, moates filled with sharks with lazers attached to their heads, those underground worm things from Tremors and invisible wind monsters from Birdbox.

I estimate this setup could be designed, resourced and built for about 5 billion dollars and mexico will pay for it

B0jangles

Akrasia wrote: »

What Trump really needs is 2 walls, about a hundred feet apart, and in between them, lets call it 'No persons land' there needs to be a combination of land mines, moates filled with sharks with lazers attached to their heads, those underground worm things from Tremors and invisible wind monsters from Birdbox.

I estimate this setup could be designed, resourced and built for about 5 billion dollars and mexico will pay for it

Graboids Akrasia, they are called graboids. If your plan is going to get Trump's support, you know it has to be absolutely perfect with every detail filled in and every contingency planned for.


Like, have you even considered what will happen if the lazersharks spring a leak and electrocute themselves???

jochenstacker

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I doubt that Trump or his fans give two ****s about any of that.

Just like Brexit, it is unicorn and gingerbread house thinking by idiots living in cloud cuckoo land, fired on by political trolls only too happy to exploit gullible idiots.

PropJoe10

Only an absolute cretin would truly believe that any sort of wall the whole way across that border makes sense. As John Oliver said in his piece - it's dumb now, but the overall maintenance costs would exceed the construction costs within a few years. It'll also create a great industry for ladders and spades.

Sand

Christy42 wrote: »

0 $ ends the shut down. Seems like a better deal to me.

As others have said $25 billion is an incredibly low estimate for the wall. Never mind maintenance costs. It also encourages Trump to pull another tantrum next year safe in the knowledge that the Democrats will back down again.

Well, it seems both Trump and the Democrats prefer the status quo of the shutdown. Both feel they cannot be seen to concede any ground on the issue. The hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans will just have to tighten their belts as their welfare is not the priority for either party in the dispute.

B0jangles

You don't give a toddler an icecream every times he screams " I WANNNA ICECREEEEAM!!!!" and throws a tantrum in the supermarket.

The same principle applies with Trump.

uptherebels

Sand wrote: »

Well, it seems both Trump and the Democrats prefer the status quo of the shutdown. Both feel they cannot be seen to concede any ground on the issue. The hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans will just have to tighten their belts as their welfare is not the priority for either party in the dispute.

If you believe that Trump should just be given the money for the wall to end the shutdown because it's only 25billion, how crazy should one of his ideas be before a stand is taken?

Christy42

Sand wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

0 $ ends the shut down. Seems like a better deal to me.

As others have said $25 billion is an incredibly low estimate for the wall. Never mind maintenance costs. It also encourages Trump to pull another tantrum next year safe in the knowledge that the Democrats will back down again.

Well, it seems both Trump and the Democrats prefer the status quo of the shutdown. Both feel they cannot be seen to concede any ground on the issue. The hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans will just have to tighten their belts as their welfare is not the priority for either party in the dispute.

Again do you want to encourage this yo happen again next year with a far bigger monetary ask?

Either he gets shut down here or those families will have to suffer again next year.

Didn't Pelosi have bills to end the shut down department by department? Did they get shut down?

Sand

Christy42 wrote: »

Again do you want to encourage this yo happen again next year with a far bigger monetary ask?

Either he gets shut down here or those families will have to suffer again next year.

Didn't Pelosi have bills to end the shut down department by department? Did they get shut down?

There is always give and take when it comes to budgets, or politics in general. If you only see the possible outcomes as total victory or total defeat then compromise is going to be impossible and the shutdown will continue indefinitely.

batgoat

Sand wrote: »

There is always give and take when it comes to budgets, or politics in general. If you only see the possible outcomes as total victory or total defeat then compromise is going to be impossible and the shutdown will continue indefinitely.

A wall based around fueling xenophobia is less so compromising and more giving fuel to all of his hatred. That would likely have plenty of negative effects for the US, further increases in hate crimes for example.

Leroy42

Sand wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

0 $ ends the shut down. Seems like a better deal to me.

As others have said $25 billion is an incredibly low estimate for the wall. Never mind maintenance costs. It also encourages Trump to pull another tantrum next year safe in the knowledge that the Democrats will back down again.

Well, it seems both Trump and the Democrats prefer the status quo of the shutdown. Both feel they cannot be seen to concede any ground on the issue. The hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans will just have to tighten their belts as their welfare is not the priority for either party in the dispute.

So you think they are both equally to blame?
What history does Trump have of political compromises? What efforts has he made to bring the Dems with him on this, or any other, issues?

Trump has stated he takes ownership of the shutdown, so surely it is down to him to find a compromise.

It both lazy, and disingenuous, to claim that they are both the blame.

We have the GOP leader of the Senate refusing to even bring bills to Trump. Trump has previously refused a Den deal last year and is now refusing to back down.

He has now made up a humanitarian crisis at the border. Funny, because 1000s of poor people walking through Mexico to look for a better life is not a humanitarian crisis but rather a gang led terrorist ploy infiltrated by Middle East terrorists.

B0jangles

Sand wrote: »

There is always give and take when it comes to budgets, or politics in general. If you only see the possible outcomes as total victory or total defeat then compromise is going to be impossible and the shutdown will continue indefinitely.

Not with Trump - he has never demonstrated any ability or willingness to compromise, to ever give rather than take. Indeed, he has repeatedly demonstrated that he cannot be trusted to keep his word about anything. Even if they get his to commit to something, he's perfectly capable of turning around and doing the opposite as soon as they are out of the room.



The dem would be fools to think otherwise - Trump sees negotiation as a process where he gets and the other side gives.

Sand

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you think they are both equally to blame?

No, I think they are both less concerned about the hundreds of thousands of Americans suffering under this shutdown than they claim to be.

Penn

Sand wrote: »

There is always give and take when it comes to budgets, or politics in general. If you only see the possible outcomes as total victory or total defeat then compromise is going to be impossible and the shutdown will continue indefinitely.

The Dems have voted on increased border security funding of about 1.6bn iirc. Trump said no. The Dems tried to pass a bill to extend government funding to February to prevent the shutdown and allow discussions to continue. Trump said no. The Dems are trying to pass bills to reopen different government departments while discussions on the wall continue. Trump says no.

Where is Trump's 'give and take'? Hell Mitch McConnell isn't even letting these bills be voted on in the Senate because a) Trump doesn't want him to and b) they're afraid the bills will pass. They're afraid that if federal workers start being paid again, they then have no leverage to force the Dems to agree to fund the wall.

Compromise where you can, but where you can't, don't. Trump wanted the shutdown, he said he'd be proud to cause the shutdown, he said he'd take responsibility for the shutdown, and after the Reps and Dens passed a bill to prevent the shutdown, Trump refused to sign it. The Dems did not cause the shutdown, and they are trying to pass bills to end or compromise on elements of the shutdown so federal workers can start being paid again. Where is Trump's 'give and take'? What 'compromises' has Trump proposed?

pixelburp

Compromise is a perfectly normal, sensible angle of a functioning, collective democracy. If Trump has taken one facet of his business style into governance, it has been an utter unwillingness to cooperate or compromise.

In fact reading between the lines Trump likely considers cooperation in a similar vein of that famous quote from The Italian Job; "...we all work together as a team. And that means you do everything I say."

Everything has to be HIS idea, his win, to know better than anyone else (even his generals as he famously said). He seems incapable of taking a step back to let politics turn the wheels, again showing that an inexperienced businessman in the highest political seat in the land was not a good idea. Especially one not especially possessing self awareness.

Sand

Penn wrote: »

The Dems have voted on increased border security funding of about 1.6bn iirc. Trump said no.

I dont think people can claim on the one hand that the cost of building the wall is grossly underestimated at 25 billion, and then on the other claim 1.6 bn is a genuine attempt at a compromise.

The Dems tried to pass a bill to extend government funding to February to prevent the shutdown and allow discussions to continue. Trump said no.

The Dems are trying to pass bills to reopen different government departments while discussions on the wall continue. Trump says no.

How genuine can those discussions be when one side is determined to get a wall, and the other side is completely ruling out a wall? Talk about it for 30 days and the positions will be just as opposed.

Where is Trump's 'give and take'?

He did sign a funding bill back in September, forestalling the shutdown then. He might claim he gave then. He has indicated previously that he is willing to negotiate on the status of illegal migrants in the US. There is the bones of a deal to be made, but people need to accept that might mean giving something as well as taking something.

Penn

Sand wrote: »

I dont think people can claim on the one hand that the cost of building the wall is grossly underestimated at 25 billion, and then on the other claim 1.6 bn is a genuine attempt at a compromise.

1.6bn for border security, not a border wall. Border security would be far more effective than a wall considering the majority of immigrants and illegal substances enter through legal points of entry, not a gap in a fence.

batgoat

Also the fact he failed to get his wall built with a Republican majority in the house and senate. It's not exactly shocking that he isn't getting an agreement from the Dems.

robinph

Sand wrote: »

How genuine can those discussions be when one side is determined to get a wall, and the other side is completely ruling out a wall? Talk about it for 30 days and the positions will be just as opposed.

Is the problem that there are too many people crossing the US Mexico border, or that a wall must be built with Trumps name on it?

If the problem is people crossing the border and one side thinks a wall is a solution, the other one doesn't then offering some money towards the problem of border security anyway is a reasonable compromise.

amandstu

robinph wrote: »

Is the problem that there are too many people crossing the US Mexico border, or that a wall must be built with Trumps name on it?

If the problem is people crossing the border and one side thinks a wall is a solution, the other one doesn't then offering some money towards the problem of border security anyway is a reasonable compromise.

How is the issue of illegal drug use in USA being addressed. ? Can the "user economy" not be equally responsible for the lawlessness in Mexico ?

Are (to take an obvious example) the North Americans dumping on the South Americans (and countries like Afghanistan) when they buy illegal drugs?

Off(ish) topic on this tread I know ,but just saying.

Igotadose

Only peripherally related to Trump, but it looks like, finally, Congress might do something about white supremacist Steve King. I think he can be censured but I don't think Congress can expel him - basically if he's found guilty of a crime, he goes to jail and Congress proceeds without him as I recall.

Anyway, it's good to see that this race-baiter might finally get his comeuppance. He actually had somewhat of a harder time getting reelected this most recent cycle:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/425001-pelosi-says-theres-interest-in-taking-action-on-steve-king

jochenstacker

Sand, what does Trump want money for?
Is there any plan or proposal? Are there blueprints and cost estimates?
There aren't.
Trump wants money for cloud cuckoo bulsh*t and no sane government will ever sign off on such a cockamamie, harebrained idea.
That's why there is no money, because there is nothing there except bullsh*t.
Unless you can throw up a link to a credible proposal and cost estimates.
We are all patiently waiting for, well, nothing, cause there is nothing there.

listermint

jochenstacker wrote: »

Sand, what does Trump want money for?
Is there any plan or proposal? Are there blueprints and cost estimates?
There aren't.
Trump wants money for cloud cuckoo bulsh*t and no sane government will ever sign off on such a cockamamie, harebrained idea.
That's why there is no money, because there is nothing there except bullsh*t.
Unless you can throw up a link to a credible proposal and cost estimates.
We are all patiently waiting for, well, nothing, cause there is nothing there.

He wants money to pack back his political donors with tax payer money through construction companies.

That's what he actually wants to do.

jochenstacker

listermint wrote: »

He wants money to pack back his political donors with tax payer money through construction companies.

That's what he actually wants to do.

+1000
And I notice deafening silence to my questions.
Thought as much.

Water John

Washington Post says Trump concealed details of talks with Putin.

pixelburp

Water John wrote: »

Washington Post says Trump concealed details of talks with Putin.

To the point of demanding and seizing the interpreters notes apparently. Now, in the interest of balance I wonder how common this behaviour might be with past admins - though transcripts are recorded for posterity, so I wonder if that extends to 3rd party notes - but assuming it isn't normal, these are not the actions of someone with nothing to hide.

Water John

Expert on CNN pointed out that the normal practise with previous POTUS after one to one meetings, was that they would immediately debrief and recall as much as possible of the conversation. These notes would then be typed up, sent back to POTUS who would then fill in gaps that he could remember.