1 hour ago -- Trump says Mexico is paying for the wall

[Kenny'sID]

Except that your request was fulfilled in post 12 of this thread, before you even made the request. And you continue to refuse to acknowledge it, challenge it or support Trump's claim.

It's hard to have a debate with an ostrich.

What you don't seem to understand is I've seen all the talk here, and I thought it would be fun to actually get someone to back it up. And back it up not with maybe's, with "look at this" and I should do the same as you and draw a conclusion on nothing but things like you have offered here.

See that's part of my point, there is often no solid facts from you people, and of course I'm not going to look at what you did and draw the same conclusion in an argument where that's exactly what I'm trying to get away from and simply, in this case get someone to show me where he clearly said he expected something so silly as for Mexico to actually write a check.

I just don't find it the least bit hard to believe he didn't mean it that way.

You started out here implying there was something wrong with those who took him at his word, but when
I ask you to prove your point, not at all an unfair request... look what i got.

 

[Kaon]

Well, Trump said it, so it must be true.

It's amazing that his supporters still quote Trump as if him saying something is evidence for the thing he says actually being true.

It isn't amazing at this point; it is par the course for the age in which we exist for now.

We all have an active part in the trajectory of history - and we are abdicating our part by letting other people swindle us for flattery.

Incidentally, I didn't think it would be here this soon, and sharply unostentatious to others.

 

[SimplyMe]

Trump's trade policies reduce the trade deficits with carious countries. We should check the great reductions in trade deficits with China.

What Trade deficits has Trump decreased? Not with China -- the trade deficit started decreasing in 2016 (under Obama; it fell to roughly $346 billion from $367 billion in 2015). In 2017, Trump's first year, the trade deficit with China increased to roughly $375 billion and, based on current numbers, it appears that 2018 will end with a trade deficit of well over $400 billion, which would be the highest trade deficit we've ever had with China.

 

[whatbogsends]

What you don't seem to understand is I've seen all the talk here, and I thought it would be fun to actually get someone to back it up. And back it up not with maybe's, with "look at this" and I should do the same as you and draw a conclusion on nothing but things like you have offered here.

See that's part of my point, there is often no solid facts from you people, and of course I'm not going to look at what you did and draw the same conclusion in an argument where that's exactly what I'm trying to get away from and simply, in this case get someone to show me where he clearly said he expected something so silly as for Mexico to actually write a check.

I just don't find it the least bit hard to believe he didn't mean it that way.

You started out here implying there was something wrong with those who took him at his word, but when
I ask you to prove your point, not at all an unfair request... look what i got.

You're not even arguing the correct point incorrectly.

No one said "they expected Mexico to write the US a check". That's a strawman argument. The only person here who thinks that's remotely related to the crux of this thread is you.

What we've said is that Trump's new claim that the trade agreement will pay for the wall is 100% false, just as his previous claims have been.

EpiscapalMe laid it out in post 12 exactly why Trump's new claim is false.

I've shown you exactly how Trump has made the same types of the claims in the past, which have invariably been false.

You bury your head in the sand and say "I choose to believe him".

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...can't get fooled again. (or something like that)

 

[SolomonVII]

My guess is that any other Republican president, be it Romney or McCain, or any of the Bushes, would have backed down by now, even as they know that border security along the southern border is a relevant issue. Probably they all would believe in border security as a principle too, but when faced with opposition they would do the milquetoast blink.
The MSM wing of the Democratic party would crank the screws and remind everyone that starving the government of budgeted funds would be a losing election issue for them, and, pragmatism over principle, these mainstream Republicans would all back down, every time. They would back down on holding funds for abortionist PP and they would no doubt back down on forcing this issue too.

Trump doesn't give a flying fiddlers about all that. He doesn't back down, but doubles down on the craziest rhetoric even.
Other politicians would be called evil and react with shame, and do what it takes to take on the persona of a good boy now.
Call Trump evil, and he shrugs, and asks the provoker to come up with some new material that everybody doesn't already know.

Maybe it is the case that Trump is totally unprincipled on any issue. No matter. Whether the issue is a matter of principle for him or not, it is the principle of his base, and a goodly proportion of the American population, who like the ideas of laws protecting even foreign little girls from being the sexual playthings of coyotes running the border.
Trump is loyal to that American demographic that wants those laws enforced, and he is loyal to people who are loyal to him.
Dems can go the Rotherham root and consider diversity to be a bigger priority than the safety of little girls having their bodies being used by criminals. That is a thing now for the left now globally, from England to Cologne in Germany, to the southern border of America.

Trump is loyal to the principles of his base on this issue, and he is taking a stand. That is something that most other Republican politicians have forgotten to do when it comes to actual principles. They have always follow the political winds as forecast to them by a hostile leftist media, instead of their principles.
Trump shoots his mouth off in a hundred different directions at once, but, win or lose, when it comes to being loyal to the principles of his base, he remains steadfast.

 

[zephcom]

My guess is that any other Republican president, be it Romney or McCain, or any of the Bushes, would have backed down by now, even as they know that border security along the southern border is a relevant issue. Probably they all would believe in border security as a principle too, but when faced with opposition they would do the milquetoast blink.
The MSM wing of the Democratic party would crank the screws and remind everyone that starving the government of budgeted funds would be a losing election issue for them, and, pragmatism over principle, these mainstream Republicans would all back down, every time. They would back down on holding funds for abortionist PP and they would no doubt back down on forcing this issue too.

Trump doesn't give a flying fiddlers about all that. He doesn't back down, but doubles down on the craziest rhetoric even.
Other politicians would be called evil and react with shame, and do what it takes to take on the persona of a good boy now.
Call Trump evil, and he shrugs, and asks the provoker to come up with some new material that everybody doesn't already know.

Maybe it is the case that Trump is totally unprincipled on any issue. No matter. Whether the issue is a matter of principle for him or not, it is the principle of his base, and a goodly proportion of the American population, who like the ideas of laws protecting even foreign little girls from being the sexual playthings of coyotes running the border.
Trump is loyal to that American demographic that wants those laws enforced, and he is loyal to people who are loyal to him.
Dems can go the Rotherham root and consider diversity to be a bigger priority than the safety of little girls having their bodies being used by criminals. That is a thing now for the left now globally, from England to Cologne in Germany, to the southern border of America.

Trump is loyal to the principles of his base on this issue, and he is taking a stand. That is something that most other Republican politicians have forgotten to do when it comes to actual principles. They have always follow the political winds as forecast to them by a hostile leftist media, instead of their principles.
Trump shoots his mouth off in a hundred different directions at once, but, win or lose, when it comes to being loyal to the principles of his base, he remains steadfast.

Hmmm. And here I thought the president was supposed to be loyal to the nation.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You're not even arguing the correct point incorrectly.

No one said "they expected Mexico to write the US a check". That's a strawman argument. The only person here who thinks that's remotely related to the crux of this thread is you.

Of course I'm arguing the proper argument, you're simply doing what you all do best and once you get backed into a corner/lose the challenge, out of desperation you turn around, and try to attack the argument itself, or the like. Always so predictable.

The point was Mexico paying for the wall. Writing a check would be paying for the wall. I used the term because that's how Trump made perfectly clear in the video what people were accusing him of. But what he said in the video doesn't matter, this is about the wall, and did he say Mexico would pay for it directly (write a check) or indirectly via the deal.

Funny you are just now attacking that when it's been mentioned all along...that's because you just now need it, and not that it was ever a problem...clearly.

If you can't stand up to the challenge, why make things worse? I can't be the only one who sees what you are trying to do.

 

[whatbogsends]

Of course I'm arguing the proper argument, you're simply doing what you all do best and once you get backed into a corner/lose the challenge, out of desperation you turn around, and try to attack the argument itself, or the like. Always so predictable.

The point was Mexico paying for the wall. Writing a check would be paying for the wall. I used the term because that's how Trump made perfectly clear in the video what people were accusing him of. But what he said in the video doesn't matter, this is about the wall, and did he say Mexico would pay for it directly (write a check) or indirectly via the deal.

Funny you are just now attacking that when it's been mentioned all along...that's because you just now need it, and not that it was ever a problem...clearly.

If you can't stand up to the challenge, why make things worse? I can't be the only one who sees what you are trying to do.

The issue is whether Mexico, in any way, shape, or form, is going to pay for the wall. No amount of mental gymnastics indicates they are. There's nothing in the trade deal with Mexico that amounts to "paying for the wall", any more than stock market gains pay for the national debt.

My argument has been consistent throughout. Yours has been "I believe him because I believe him" and "prove this unrelated nonsense".

It's clear who lost this argument, and it ain't me. It's not about "whether Trump said it would be paid for by the trade deal with Mexico" - yes, that's his latest claim. The argument is about whether the trade deal actually will pay for the wall, which has been shown over and over in this thread that it won't. Trump lied again, and you are eating it up.

 

[Kaon]

 

[wing2000]

My guess is that any other Republican president, be it Romney or McCain, or any of the Bushes, would have backed down by now, even as they know that border security along the southern border is a relevant issue. Probably they all would believe in border security as a principle too, but when faced with opposition they would do the milquetoast blink.

Yes, my guess that any other President (of either party) would understand that trust is vital to any compromise. A man whose words means nothing should not be surprised when others have no trust in what he says. He's had many opportunities to end this...and refuses because he mistakenly thinks the world should bow to his demands.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The issue is whether Mexico, in any way, shape, or form, is going to pay for the wall. No amount of mental gymnastics indicates they are. There's nothing in the trade deal with Mexico that amounts to "paying for the wall", any more than stock market gains pay for the national debt.

My argument has been consistent throughout. Yours has been "I believe him because I believe him" and "prove this unrelated nonsense".

It's clear who lost this argument, and it ain't me. It's not about "whether Trump said it would be paid for by the trade deal with Mexico" - yes, that's his latest claim. The argument is about whether the trade deal actually will pay for the wall, which has been shown over and over in this thread that it won't. Trump lied again, and you are eating it up.

I'm listening, really I am.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

My guess is that any other Republican president, be it Romney or McCain, or any of the Bushes, would have backed down by now, even as they know that border security along the southern border is a relevant issue. Probably they all would believe in border security as a principle too, but when faced with opposition they would do the milquetoast blink.
The MSM wing of the Democratic party would crank the screws and remind everyone that starving the government of budgeted funds would be a losing election issue for them, and, pragmatism over principle, these mainstream Republicans would all back down, every time. They would back down on holding funds for abortionist PP and they would no doubt back down on forcing this issue too.

Trump doesn't give a flying fiddlers about all that. He doesn't back down, but doubles down on the craziest rhetoric even.
Other politicians would be called evil and react with shame, and do what it takes to take on the persona of a good boy now.
Call Trump evil, and he shrugs, and asks the provoker to come up with some new material that everybody doesn't already know.

Maybe it is the case that Trump is totally unprincipled on any issue. No matter. Whether the issue is a matter of principle for him or not, it is the principle of his base, and a goodly proportion of the American population, who like the ideas of laws protecting even foreign little girls from being the sexual playthings of coyotes running the border.
Trump is loyal to that American demographic that wants those laws enforced, and he is loyal to people who are loyal to him.
Dems can go the Rotherham root and consider diversity to be a bigger priority than the safety of little girls having their bodies being used by criminals. That is a thing now for the left now globally, from England to Cologne in Germany, to the southern border of America.

Trump is loyal to the principles of his base on this issue, and he is taking a stand. That is something that most other Republican politicians have forgotten to do when it comes to actual principles. They have always follow the political winds as forecast to them by a hostile leftist media, instead of their principles.
Trump shoots his mouth off in a hundred different directions at once, but, win or lose, when it comes to being loyal to the principles of his base, he remains steadfast.

Strawman argument.

Once again you assume, incorrectly, that Democrats are against border security. As has been shown repeatedly this is a false narrative. Not surprising that wall supporters keep going back to it, though. When you have no argument in favor of your position, attack the other, even if it is a strawman you made.

Trump had a stupid idea during the campaign and he can’t bring himself to let it go. If he really cared about border security, he would be willing to take part in those negotiations. Instead, he perseverates on the wall and will listen to nor offer any other ideas.

 

[tulc]

Did you disprove what he said somewhere in all that?

...you do understand that "I believe him and I need no evidence" pretty much says "I believe him and I wont believe any evidence that says otherwise." so why do you ask for something that wont make any difference in what you believe?
tulc(is just wondering)

 

[Kaon]

The Daily Show on Instagram: “Oh man, once Trump gets his wall he better hope no one shows Mexico this old video we found.”

 

[cow451]

My guess is that any other Republican president, be it Romney or McCain, or any of the Bushes, would have backed down by now, even as they know that border security along the southern border is a relevant issue. Probably they all would believe in border security as a principle too, but when faced with opposition they would do the milquetoast blink.
The MSM wing of the Democratic party would crank the screws and remind everyone that starving the government of budgeted funds would be a losing election issue for them, and, pragmatism over principle, these mainstream Republicans would all back down, every time. They would back down on holding funds for abortionist PP and they would no doubt back down on forcing this issue too.

Trump doesn't give a flying fiddlers about all that. He doesn't back down, but doubles down on the craziest rhetoric even.
Other politicians would be called evil and react with shame, and do what it takes to take on the persona of a good boy now.
Call Trump evil, and he shrugs, and asks the provoker to come up with some new material that everybody doesn't already know.

Maybe it is the case that Trump is totally unprincipled on any issue. No matter. Whether the issue is a matter of principle for him or not, it is the principle of his base, and a goodly proportion of the American population, who like the ideas of laws protecting even foreign little girls from being the sexual playthings of coyotes running the border.
Trump is loyal to that American demographic that wants those laws enforced, and he is loyal to people who are loyal to him.
Dems can go the Rotherham root and consider diversity to be a bigger priority than the safety of little girls having their bodies being used by criminals. That is a thing now for the left now globally, from England to Cologne in Germany, to the southern border of America.

Trump is loyal to the principles of his base on this issue, and he is taking a stand. That is something that most other Republican politicians have forgotten to do when it comes to actual principles. They have always follow the political winds as forecast to them by a hostile leftist media, instead of their principles.
Trump shoots his mouth off in a hundred different directions at once, but, win or lose, when it comes to being loyal to the principles of his base, he remains steadfast.

Me. Trump tells his loyalists what they want to hear. He doesn’t give a flip about any of them other than what they do for him. You are correct. He is without principle , a conclusion easily reached by observing his behavior.

 

[cow451]

Hmmm. And here I thought the president was supposed to be loyal to the nation.

Trump? Are you nuts?

 

[zephcom]

Trump? Are you nuts?

It may yet be shown he is loyal to a nation. It just might not be his birth nation.

 

[AllButNone]

What you don't seem to understand is I've seen all the talk here, and I thought it would be fun to actually get someone to back it up. And back it up not with maybe's, with "look at this" and I should do the same as you and draw a conclusion on nothing but things like you have offered here.

Back in 2016 the Trump campaign released a memo outlining that he would cut off remittances to force Mexico to make a one time payment of $5 to $10 billion to pay for the wall. From here, when Trump said he would make Mexico pay for the wall, it was assumed he was referring to this particular plan.

 

[cow451]

Back in 2016 the Trump campaign released a memo outlining that he would cut off remittances to force Mexico to make a one time payment of $5 to $10 billion to pay for the wall. From here, when Trump said he would make Mexico pay for the wall, it was assumed he was referring to this particular plan.

About as stupid as the current plan.

 

[jardiniere]

Can you disprove what he said in the video about him never claiming Mexico would actually write out a check for the wall, but it would be paid for through the deal with Mexico?

Yes. From WP:

April 13, 2016. Method: Maybe a check.

“You know, the politicians say, ‘They’ll never pay...’” Trump said during a live event with Fox News' Sean Hannity. “100 percent,” he assured the cheering audience.

“They’re not going to write us a check, but...” Hannity replied.

“They’ll pay. They’ll pay. In one form or another," Trump said. "They may even write us a check by the time they see what happens.”

Trump's position on Mexico paying for the wall.

It's an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year."

At this point, I predict you will leap to a claim that just because the president didn't say precisely that "Mexico would actually write out a check", it therefore proves that Trump never made a claim even syntactically similar.