• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Logic

Mexico's former president's response to "The Wall" (And to Trump)

I found this pretty funny, I mean, Mexico's former president treating Donal like the child he is. You know all the other leaders feel the same but can't express it. It's so embarrassing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYZKrn7Bbl8

"I have to get going, I have a busy day of not being hated by the majority of my country".
 
Last edited:
Rexedgar said:
Help me understand the President's thought process. In his last few rallies, DJT has touted that illegal immigration across the southern border is down. In Arizona, the other evening, I heard down "78, almost 80%. What is the justification for a southern wall if the measures are working. Is it only because the "promise" was a cornerstone of the campaign? There were many "promises" that seemed to have been put on the back burner at a minimum.
Click to expand...

JackA said:
Then there's this logic: We are going to have a wall and make Mexico pay for it. Yea!! = We are going to have a war and make Americans pay for it. Yea!!.
Click to expand...

MrWonka said:
The current president lacks the capacity for rational thought so there isn't one.
Click to expand...

Come on now, I know picking on Trump is an easy target but it's hard to take criticisms of his ability to think seriously when people aren't even attempting to look at the question objectively to see if they can come up with a reasonable answer.

Literally in les than 30 seconds of thinking I could at least come up with one conceivable answer....

Policies and enforcement can change. A president can choose to "focus resources" of the immigration entities in this country to things other than enforcement and border security. A President can choose to act in a positive and supportive manner with Sanctuary cities rather than applying pressure to them. A president can have his agencies change the definition for how things are tallied to make numbers appear larger or smaller than they did previously. There's a lot of latitude a President has as the chief executive to impact the ability of our various mechanisms for illegal immigration deterrence.

There's not a whole lot a president can do to make a wall not be present. While yes, the effectiveness of the wall could be hampered (less manpower patrolling it, less money in upkeep, less routine examinations for possible weak points), the actual presence of it and the natural deterrence that such a thing creates is not something that could be removed by a President. So unlike policies, procedures, and regulations that can be changed with a stroke of a pen by a future administration, the Wall would represent a relatively permanent form of deterrence that would live on even after a Trump presidency has ended.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Actually, that's exactly who it's for. You're born on American soil, you're American. It's irrational for two people being born in the same American hospital for one to be an American and one to be a foreigner. If you hate the idea of birthright citizenship, there are plenty of other countries you could move to (as an immigrant).
Click to expand...
I did word my thought poorly not that is any excuse for your rude response. The anchor baby clause was created as a means of combatting slavery by giving their children equal standing here. That is no longer needed. The clause has served its purpose and outlived its usefulness.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
katzgar said:
You are living in a pretend world facts show Clinton beat Trump's ass by 2.8 million votes in the general election
Click to expand...

Can't wait for her first WH press conference lol.
 
katzgar said:
You are living in a pretend world facts show Clinton beat Trump's ass by 2.8 million votes in the general election
Click to expand...

What you are talking about is the "popular vote" not the "general election".

The winner of the general election is the individual who ultimately secures the most electoral college votes, as the "general election" refers to the election process post the primary election.

Our system does not function off the popular vote, so it's impossible to "lose" the election based on having less popular vote. It would be like trying to suggest the Pittsburg Steelers lost Super Bowl XLIII because the Arizona Cardinals gain 115 more yards than them. The problem with such a statement is that football games aren't decided by yardage, they're decided by score, and the Steelers scored 4 more points that day. The general election in the United States isn't decided by the popular vote, it's decided by the electoral college, and Trump had 77 more electoral votes that day.

It is factually correct to suggest Trump received less of the popular vote. It's factually incorrect to suggest Trump "lost" the general election.
 
Zyphlin said:
What you are talking about is the "popular vote" not the "general election".

The winner of the general election is the individual who ultimately secures the most electoral college votes, as the "general election" refers to the election process post the primary election.

Our system does not function off the popular vote, so it's impossible to "lose" the election based on having less popular vote. It would be like trying to suggest the Pittsburg Steelers lost Super Bowl XLIII because the Arizona Cardinals gain 115 more yards than them. The problem with such a statement is that football games aren't decided by yardage, they're decided by score, and the Steelers scored 4 more points that day. The general election in the United States isn't decided by the popular vote, it's decided by the electoral college, and Trump had 77 more electoral votes that day.

It is factually correct to suggest Trump received less of the popular vote. It's factually incorrect to suggest Trump "lost" the general election.
Click to expand...


incorrect, your assertions are not borne out by facts. https://www.usa.gov/election Play all the games you wish but in the end the American people consider trump a loser.
 
katzgar said:
incorrect, your assertions are not borne out by facts. https://www.usa.gov/election Play all the games you wish but in the end the American people consider trump a loser.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not incorrect. And speaking of games, if you want to use that as your source for attempting to break out the notion of the "general election" as to singularly the process of election day in a semantic argument, you're STILL wrong.

As your own source suggests: "When people cast their vote, they are actually voting for a group of people called electors".

So if you're wanting to be semantic about it, you're still wrong in claiming that "Trump lost the general election" or "Clinton beat Trumps ass"...because per YOUR source neither Trump nor Clinton was being voted on. Rather, Electors for Donald Trump or electors for Hillary Clinton were being voted on. So IF you're wanting to be so semantic that you're classifying the "general election" as literally only the actual day, then Trump NOR Clinton would have "won" or "lost" that day because they weren't what people were "actually voting for" per your source.

So which way do you want it Katz? Do you want to be ridiculous semantic, in which case you're factually incorrect per your own source because neither Trump nor Clinton were what people were "actually voting for" and thus were unable to "lose" or to "beat" the other.

OR

Do you want to speak in the common sense where the "general election" is the entire post primary process which results in the selection of the President of the United, in which case you are factually wrong because Donald Trump secured the most electoral votes which means he became POTUS.

I mean, I'm a generous guy, I'm fully happy to allow you to determine which way you want to be factually wrong and I'll be happy to go that route in our continued discussions. Just let me know which one you'd like.
 
Zyphlin said:
No, I'm not incorrect. And speaking of games, if you want to use that as your source for attempting to break out the notion of the "general election" as to singularly the process of election day in a semantic argument, you're STILL wrong.

As your own source suggests: "When people cast their vote, they are actually voting for a group of people called electors".

So if you're wanting to be semantic about it, you're still wrong in claiming that "Trump lost the general election" or "Clinton beat Trumps ass"...because per YOUR source neither Trump nor Clinton was being voted on. Rather, Electors for Donald Trump or electors for Hillary Clinton were being voted on. So IF you're wanting to be so semantic that you're classifying the "general election" as literally only the actual day, then Trump NOR Clinton would have "won" or "lost" that day because they weren't what people were "actually voting for" per your source.

So which way do you want it Katz? Do you want to be ridiculous semantic, in which case you're factually incorrect per your own source because neither Trump nor Clinton were what people were "actually voting for" and thus were unable to "lose" or to "beat" the other.

OR

Do you want to speak in the common sense where the "general election" is the entire post primary process which results in the selection of the President of the United, in which case you are factually wrong because Donald Trump secured the most electoral votes which means he became POTUS.

I mean, I'm a generous guy, I'm fully happy to allow you to determine which way you want to be factually wrong and I'll be happy to go that route in our continued discussions. Just let me know which one you'd like.
Click to expand...


All you're trying to do is divert the fact that Trump lost by 2.8 million votes into some sort of semantics foolishness
 
katzgar said:
All you're trying to do is divert the fact that Trump lost by 2.8 million votes into some sort of semantics foolishness
Click to expand...

See, you keep saying that, yet you're just wrong no matter which way you want to go.

If you want to go with your semantic games that the general election is literally just election day....Trump lost no such thing, because Trump wasn't being voted for, his electors were. And those electors are voted on by a state by state basis, not on a national basis, so the overall popular vote is irrelevant.

If you want to go with common vernacular of the general election being the post primary process....Trump losing the popular vote is irrelevant to the results of the general election, because nothing is determined by the popular vote.

I have no problem at all ACCURATELY stating facts. Hillary Clinton obtained more of the popular vote than Donald Trump. Donald Trump obtained less of the popular vote than Hillary Clinton.

I also have no problem with accurately dealing with how our election process works. Donald Trump secured more of the popular vote in various states that provided him with a greater number of electoral college electors, which means he won the election and became President; because the overall popular vote is irrelevant as it relates to the election.

I'm sorry that you're the equivalent of a salty Cardinal's fan still griping about the Steelers winning the superbowl because you "outplayed" them; but overall national popular vote means jack as it relates to "winning" or "losing" the election for President in this country.
 
Zyphlin said:
See, you keep saying that, yet you're just wrong no matter which way you want to go.

If you want to go with your semantic games that the general election is literally just election day....Trump lost no such thing, because Trump wasn't being voted for, his electors were. And those electors are voted on by a state by state basis, not on a national basis, so the overall popular vote is irrelevant.

If you want to go with common vernacular of the general election being the post primary process....Trump losing the popular vote is irrelevant to the results of the general election, because nothing is determined by the popular vote.

I have no problem at all ACCURATELY stating facts. Hillary Clinton obtained more of the popular vote than Donald Trump. Donald Trump obtained less of the popular vote than Hillary Clinton.

I also have no problem with accurately dealing with how our election process works. Donald Trump secured more of the popular vote in various states that provided him with a greater number of electoral college electors, which means he won the election and became President; because the overall popular vote is irrelevant as it relates to the election.

I'm sorry that you're the equivalent of a salty Cardinal's fan still griping about the Steelers winning the superbowl because you "outplayed" them; but overall national popular vote means jack as it relates to "winning" or "losing" the election for President in this country.
Click to expand...


incorrect. electors are not elected by popular vote. https://www.usa.gov/election
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom