Why Democrats can't agree to give Trump his wall

[Rexedgar]

Saying they will pay is not saying how they will pay is it? Of course it is not.

Proposing ways they may be compelled to pay is not saying that is exactly how it will be done.
Do you really not understand the differences? Do you really not understand the difference between the words may and will?

View attachment 67247864

 

[CLAX1911]

You were allowed to keep your doctor. There was no law stopping you from seeing your doctor.

he didn't say there would be no law made against you sing whatever doctor you want he said you'd be allowed to keep your doctor. Nice try.

That statement from Obama was a rebuttal to the lie Republican assholes were spewing that the government was going to dictate which doctors you were allowed to see.

if I can go to whatever doctor I want and pay full price where I used to be able to get compensated from insurance, and now I can't and I have to pay three times more for insurance that's a bad deal.

So the health care bill was a lie it's not affordable and I didn't get to keep my doctor. Sure I could go to him and just pay full price but I'm still being extorted with insurance and that just becomes an ass hole fee it's not really insurance.

That was blatantly false.
Your doctor decided to quit? Deal with it. The ACA did not include a provision for indentured servitude.

Will the idea that I would get to keep my doctor then would be a lie.

 

[HumblePi]

Renegotiation our trade agreement with them and compensating for those funds that are going to be spent on the wall/barrier says otherwise.

That 'renegotiation' has already been done, remember? The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA has still not been approved by Congress but it is in no way going to fund his wall. If it were a done deal, you better believe he'd be touting it all over the place and we wouldn't be in a government shutdown if that was guaranteed, would we? The USMCA's fate is uncertain in Congress, and there are economic unknowns about how possible revenue streams indirectly created by the deal would be siphoned toward the wall.

 

[Excon]

View attachment 67247864

1. Not an argument.
2. Irrelevant.
3. Apparently this is you saying you also do not understand the differences involved here.

 

[Deuce]

JFC! You are wrong on the specific so you want to change the goal posts now and argue something else. Too ****ing bad. Our argument was not that he said Mexico would pay but about a specific item of which you are wrong.




Wrong.
We were arguing a specific, it is you that wants to change the goal posts here.

The goalpost has always been "Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall" and that from day one he meant an actual, cash payment. Not this stuff about "well we'll get better trade deals so they're indirectly paying for it."

That's it. That has always been the goalpost for me. You may have interpreted "write a check" to mean a literal, physical, bank check and therefore liberals are wrong. That's a really, really stupid interpretation.

He is only recently trying to backpedal and claim something about trade deals.

edit: oh, ****. I said "cash payment" and now you're going to think that means an actual pile of pesos...

 

[Excon]

That 'renegotiation' has already been done, remember? The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA has still not been approved by Congress but it is in no way going to fund his wall.

Directly? No one said that did they?

If it were a done deal, you better believe he'd be touting it all over the place and we wouldn't be in a government shutdown if that was guaranteed, would we? The USMCA's fate is uncertain in Congress, and there are economic unknowns about how possible revenue streams indirectly created by the deal would be siphoned toward the wall.

And still, a better deal can certainly make up for the funds to be spent on the wall/barrier which of course is in effect Mexico paying for the wall.

 

[Deuce]

Directly? No one said that did they?


And still, a better deal can certainly make up for the funds to be spent on the wall/barrier which of course is in effect Mexico paying for the wall.

"In effect" paying for it is a retcon, Excon.

 

[HumblePi]

Directly? No one said that did they?


And still, a better deal can certainly make up for the funds to be spent on the wall/barrier which of course is in effect Mexico paying for the wall.

 

[Excon]

The goalpost has always been "Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall" and that from day one he meant an actual, cash payment.

No. And stop making up bs.

Even in the possible ways to compel payment there was the suggestion to take remittances.
That is not an actual cash payment from Mexico, or Mexico writing a check. That is an indirect method, so stop with the made up bs.

Not this stuff about "well we'll get better trade deals so they're indirectly paying for it."

:doh
Says you after previously citing a suggested indirect method.
Just stop and go away. You have yet to make a valid, let alone on-point argument

 

[Deuce]

No. And stop making up bs.

Even in the possible ways to compel payment there was the suggestion to take remittances.
That is not an actual cash payment from Mexico, or Mexico writing a check. That is an indirect method, so stop with the made up bs.

You don't get to ****in decide what my position is.

"Taking" remittances? I don't recall mass theft being suggested.

:doh
Says you after previously citing a suggested indirect method.
Just stop and go away. You have yet to make a valid, let alone on-point argument

The link I provided literally had Mexico paying $5-10 billion. "A one-time payment" mean something different to you?

 

[Bodi]

While I agree with every point, I think it gets lost in these discussions that Republicans have been shutting down the government and taking hostages since the Gingrich days. Since the Tea Party walked into town it's been escalating to an almost yearly occurrence.

Democrats have allowed Republicans to take Medicare, Social Security, CHIPS, DACA, unemployment benefits, and all kind of other government services for ransom, and they have rewarded Republicans each time this has happened, so we shouldn't be surprised that Republicans are holding out hope that the Democrats will cave.

Republicans have become not just uncompromising, but brutal and sociopathic in what they are willing to do for their agenda. Rewarding them for their tactics and never retaliating has encouraged them to not only continue them, but to also escalate them in the future.

"Oh, we don't have your votes? Fine. WE'LL MAKE YOU GIVE US YOUR VOTES, OR ELSE THESE PEOPLE GET IT!" is something that should have had severe consequences a long, long time ago my friends, and that is why we are where we are.

Brutal and sociopathic? How can anybody take your post seriously when it is a melodramatic emotional wreck?

 

[Excon]

iLOL
So you do not understand that is an indirect method? Really? That is what you want to hang your hat on? :lamo Figures.

So again.

Directly? No one said that did they? ​

 

[Excon]

"In effect" paying for it is a retcon, Excon.

Wrong as usual.
Indirect methods have always been suggested.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

While I agree with every point, I think it gets lost in these discussions that Republicans have been shutting down the government and taking hostages since the Gingrich days. Since the Tea Party walked into town it's been escalating to an almost yearly occurrence.

Democrats have allowed Republicans to take Medicare, Social Security, CHIPS, DACA, unemployment benefits, and all kind of other government services for ransom, and they have rewarded Republicans each time this has happened, so we shouldn't be surprised that Republicans are holding out hope that the Democrats will cave.

Republicans have become not just uncompromising, but brutal and sociopathic in what they are willing to do for their agenda. Rewarding them for their tactics and never retaliating has encouraged them to not only continue them, but to also escalate them in the future.

"Oh, we don't have your votes? Fine. WE'LL MAKE YOU GIVE US YOUR VOTES, OR ELSE THESE PEOPLE GET IT!" is something that should have had severe consequences a long, long time ago my friends, and that is why we are where we are.

I hate to admit that it's pretty difficult to push back against Moving's compelling examples.
But he has a point. Dems in the past thought that maybe this was just a one-off, or maybe a two-off.
They were hoping against hope that it wasn't going to morph into a regular occurrence.

And now it is, and it has been for a while.

Last time this happened, Democrats were terrified. This time it might be different. It's going to HAVE to be different, otherwise we can forget EVER EVER having the ability to govern effectively again.

No negotiations with hostage takers.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Brutal and sociopathic? How can anybody take your post seriously when it is a melodramatic emotional wreck?

You're in ****ing NZ, so you're not faced with getting evicted, getting your car repo-ed or anything else.
So you can basically stick your nonsensical shots across the bow where the Sun doesn't shine, Skippy.
Nobody who has to work without pay and who can't get extensions on their bills due takes your response seriously.
See ya later, internet tough guy.

 

[markjs]

While Republicans are trying to make this about a simple matter of "border security" or "who's to blame for the shutdown," there are practical matters for why Democrats can't give Trump his wall.

1)The source of funding for the wall was a lie. Trump supporters will argue that they knew it was a lie, but this demands adhering to the rather...unique...logic that because they were in on the lie this somehow obligates the rest of the country to go along with it. In other words, just because more than one person is in on a con doesn't make it any less of a con. But more to the point, to agree to fund a giant project based on one of the most important aspects of it being a lie simply rewards that lie, and incentivizes the motivation to lie on future projects.

2)Pretty much everything about the wall is a lie, from the artificial sense of urgency surrounding it which spontaneously came into being just as Democrats took control of the House, to the claim that terrorists are flooding across the borders in the thousands, to the claim that immigrants bring disease, to the claim that immigrants are responsible for any meaningful percentage of crime...it's all based on lies. If the wall was a necessary and legitimate need, it wouldn't require lies in its defense. The truth would stand on its own. So as with the above: to agree to fund a giant project based on lies simply rewards those lies, and incentivizes the motivation to lie on future projects.

3)To give Trump his wall proves correct his belief that using Federal workers as pawns is a workable strategy, and he will therefore be sure to repeat the strategy.

4)Similar to the above but even more significant, to provide Trump his wall demonstrates that Trump will be able to demand something unreasonable every time a spending bill is up. Since he will know that Democrats will fold, this will immediately reduce the House to an inferior chamber of Congress (and by extension, an inferior branch of government). Trump will correctly conclude that he could demand anything at all, up to and including the cessation of House oversight over the Executive branch altogether.

5)To give Trump his wall negates Trump's own claim that he owns the shutdown. Why adopt blame for a terrible thing that somebody else has already agreed to shoulder the blame for?

6)Trump has spent so much effort imbuing the wall with racist principles (equating Latinos to vermin, disease, criminals and animals) that for Democrats to agree to a wall necessarily adopts the stink of his racism onto themselves.

7)Trump doesn't even treat the wall issue seriously, so why should Democrats? To date, Trump hasn't landed on a final vision of the wall, hasn't conducted a serious cost analysis of it, can't seem to stick to a single narrative for who will pay for it, and often abandons the wall only to spontaneously make it his prerogative by the end of the day depending on who on Fox News is currently yammering at him. If the wall is such a serious issue, then Trump has treated it as unseriously as possible, and therefore Democrats are not required to treat it as a serious thing that they need to spend a single dollar on.

8)This is technically a political reason and not the most important one, but there's no reason it should be be excluded from the list anyway: Republicans have already lost the public debate on the wall. A majority of the country doesn't see the wall as a priority, doesn't want a shutdown, and they blame the shutdown primarily on Trump and Republicans. Around 32-35% blame Democrats, which is an interesting number because that's a little less than the percentage of the country that comprises Trump's own base. Why should Democrats give in when, as polls are consistently showing, they already won the debate?

Incredibly astute, and accurate, and a complete waste of effort for any of his base to try and read that. Firstly, Idoubt they could get more than a few sentences in without the rage boiling. They just takes usch sound logic as "Proof they're right", it's confirmation bias for them. Trump just makes them feel so DREAMY!:roll:

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

But the Mueller investigation cranks forward, the shutdown doesn't affect it at all.

Nope, it's already funded.

 

[Bodi]

You're in ****ing NZ, so you're not faced with getting evicted, getting your car repo-ed or anything else.
So you can basically stick your nonsensical shots across the bow where the Sun doesn't shine, Skippy.
Nobody who has to work without pay and who can't get extensions on their bills due takes your response seriously.
See ya later, internet tough guy.

The Wall is a great idea... it promotes stability businesses and community. It helps with legal immigration. It reduces illegal immigration by as much as 95%.



More importantly though... why are you swearing at New Zeland?

 

[markjs]

iLOL
So you do not understand that is an indirect method? Really? That is what you want to hang your hat on? :lamo Figures.

So again.

Directly? No one said that did they? ​

You due understand that the Tarrifs are paid by Americans?

Oh and then there's that pesky (it isn't signed) point that makes you wrong as per usual.:roll:

 

[RaleBulgarian]

A point that is belied by the fact that he then lied when he claimed he never said Mexico would pay for it.

And even if true (and it's not), then all you've demonstrated is that he's too ignorant and too incompetent to spearhead such a large and serious policy.

Trump is a proven multitasker. He is fully capable of being ignorant, incompetent, and a liar, all at the same time.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The Wall is a great idea...

Opinion from an outsider

it promotes stability businesses and community.

unsupported

It helps with legal immigration. It reduces illegal immigration by as much as 95%.

unsupported by any facts

More importantly though... why are you swearing at New Zeland?

Reading comprehension problem, I was swearing at the fact that you sitting there IN NZ don't know ****-all what you're talking about.

 

[Bodi]

Opinion from an outsider

Lived in S. California for 35 years actually... south of Los Angeles... I guess that makes me more an expert than you. In fact, I am sitting here right now in Orange County.

unsupported

The Wall would stop almost half of the illegal immigrants from south of the border...

unsupported by any facts

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-...immigration-migrants-fact-check-claim-review/

Reading comprehension problem, I was swearing at the fact that you sitting there IN NZ don't know ****-all what you're talking about.

I worked with and taught plenty of illegal immigrants... and when you say "****ing New Zealand" you are swearing at/about New Zealand. If you were talking about where I was sitting you would say, "You are ****ing sitting there in New Zealand" so no, I don't have a reading comprehension problem... but you DO have a communicating effectively problem...

 

[Excon]

You due understand that the Tarrifs are paid by Americans?

Due?
Just like the tarrifs placed on us by the Chinese are paid by the Chinese right? iLOL


Oh and then there's that pesky (it isn't signed) point that makes you wrong as per usual.[/QUOTE]
Wrong a usual.
1. It is like you do not understand the language you are using.
It has been signed. Had you used approved, you would have been accurate.
That is a bargaining chip the Dems could use to get Trump to back off of the wall demand but they clearly have no interest in anything but opposition to Trump.

2. It not being signed yet does not make my argument wrong.

 

[Excon]

The goalpost has always been "Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall" and that from day one he meant an actual, cash payment. Not this stuff about "well we'll get better trade deals so they're indirectly paying for it."

That's it. That has always been the goalpost for me. You may have interpreted "write a check" to mean a literal, physical, bank check and therefore liberals are wrong. That's a really, really stupid interpretation.

Not only are you wrong but you are being dishonest as well.
He never said they would write a check. Period. Saying he said they would is a deliberate untruth.

Indirect methods have always been part of what has been suggested.

You don't get to ****in decide what my position is.

Stop with the bs.
You know damn well you are in the wrong here.

"Taking" remittances? I don't recall mass theft being suggested.

What do you think the first suggestions were in the pdf you linked to were about? FFS Now you display that you don't even know the information you provided and are attempting to use in argument.

The link I provided literally had Mexico paying $5-10 billion. "A one-time payment" mean something different to you?

Oy vey! Really? The link you provided suggests an indirect method. Do you really not understand that?

Apparently you do not understand that saying it is easy decision for Mexico to make a one-time payment verses losing more money by another way is not saying they will?
Why do you not understand these things? TDS is apparently the only answer.



And again. What do you not understand about the difference between the words may and will?
It is not "will" write a check.
Like I already said; Just stop and go away. You have yet to make a valid, let alone on-point argument

 

[Deuce]

Not only are you wrong but you are being dishonest as well.
He never said they would write a check. Period. Saying he said they would is a deliberate untruth.

Indirect methods have always been part of what has been suggested.



Stop with the bs.
You know damn well you are in the wrong here.


What do you think the first suggestions were in the pdf you linked to were about? FFS Now you display that you don't even know the information you provided and are attempting to use in argument.


Oy vey! Really? The link you provided suggests an indirect method. Do you really not understand that?

Apparently you do not understand that saying it is easy decision for Mexico to make a one-time payment verses losing more money by another way is not saying they will?
Why do you not understand these things? TDS is apparently the only answer.



And again. What do you not understand about the difference between the words may and will?
It is not "will" write a check.
Like I already said; Just stop and go away. You have yet to make a valid, let alone on-point argument

All of those suggestions were methods to coerce Mexico into making a direct cash transfer. It's right there in the opening paragraph.

The reason that this is important is that it proves that all along the campaign Donald Trump was referring to direct cash transfer as his main goal.