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

[ToddNotTodd]

Of course I saw it, did you not see where I quoted it? Of course he wants them to pay one way or another. It's not completely at odds...pay is pay. Do you mind if he gets them to pay however he can?

Pay is not pay in this discussion, as the topic is what Trump promised his supporters. Your omitting the distinction between “direct” and “indirect” is at best sloppy and at worst dishonest.

 

[AllButNone]

Do you mind if he gets them to pay however he can?

Of course. No nation should be forcing another nation to pay for its own domestic policy. This isn't the 19th century.

The post to which you just replied should have told how not only was your argument weak, but nonexistent

Do you need a Snickers?

Gotta be honest here, I haven't really made an argument so I'm not sure what you're carping on. I pretty much posted the memo and idly commented on it. I think the memo stands on its own.

But if you want to get into the details, let's take an excerpt from the memo that you think buttresses your position.

Trade tariffs, or enforcement of existing trade rules: There is no doubt that Mexico is engaging in unfair subsidy behavior that has eliminated thousands of U.S. jobs, and which we are obligated to respond to; the impact of any tariffs on the price imports will be more than offset by the economic and income gains of increased production in the United States, in addition to revenue from any tariffs themselves. Mexico needs access to our markets much more than the reverse, so we have all the leverage and will win the negotiation. By definition, if you have a large trade deficit with a nation, it means they are selling far more to you than the reverse - thus they, not you, stand to lose from enforcing trade rules through tariffs (as has been done to save many U.S. industries in the past)​

So here most of the text is dedicated to showing that the US has leverage over Mexico. Out of all of this, there's one particular line that states something outside of this: we have all the leverage and will win the negotiation.

In the context of "compel payment" and from the text above it's clear what negotiation he's talking about: the negotiation for obtaining a lump sum payment.

The remainder of this paragraph has nothing about using tariffs to pay for the wall (tariffs are paid by American anyway) or that enforcing regulations will bring in the money necessary to pay for the wall. The rest of the paragraph only and quite specifically enforces the point that the US has leverage to win this particular negotiation.

Inferring from it that this was some stated attempt to indirectly gain payment (Trump's use of indirect payment by the way is dishonest, no such thing presently exists in USMCA, that's not how trade deals work) is ... strange. How ever are you reading this to get the idea that it has anything to do with something other than some lump sum payment?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Of course. No nation should be forcing another nation to pay for its own domestic policy. This isn't the 19th century.

I see, your changing the subject now...ok

 

[cow451]

Good grief, Hank, look around, is it any wonder Mexico's president/others thought that? See what the press does with what he said? as well as the people like here, who blindly jump on the presses band wagon and refuse to look into what was really said/done?

So Mexico is going to pay via a trade deal that hasn’t been enacted by a Congress increasingly disinclined to blindly follow the President.

Tell you what. When Mexico deposits that money, then have at it. Otherwise your leader is just shoveling a bunch of manure.

 

[cow451]

Because of those words "compel Mexico to pay" followed by a series of points that show how to leverage America's position to compel a direct payment from the Mexican government...

*edit, just curious, do you really not see the phrase "compel to pay" as completely at odds with "indirectly pay"?

None of the “compels” is based on reality.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

AIRPLANES.
BOATS.
LADDERS.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So Mexico is going to pay via a trade deal that hasn’t been enacted by a Congress increasingly disinclined to blindly follow the President.

Tell you what. When Mexico deposits that money, then have at it. Otherwise your leader is just shoveling a bunch of manure.

No one knows what Mexico is going to do. The man is trying to get a wall built...HOWEVER.

If he wasn't, you all would be here griping about him not building a wall.

This thread testifies to the fact hate can make people babble all kinds of flaky things.

 

[cow451]

No one knows what Mexico is going to do. The man is trying to get a wall built...HOWEVER.

If he wasn't, you all would be here griping about him not building a wall.

This thread testifies to the fact hate can make people babble all kinds of flaky things.

I promise I would not be blaming him for not building the wall. He doesn’t have to make up stupid stuff that any reasonably astute person knows isn’t logical. Mexico isn’t paying for the Wall unless the US invades and robs every bank in the country.

How much have you contributed to the go fund me Wall initiative?

 

[cow451]

This thread testifies to the fact hate can make people babble all kinds of flaky things.

True. Trumps Twitter posts are evidence of that, but why bring that up? Is he posting here?

 

[tulc]

(snip)
I was asking the opposing party to convince me otherwise.

If you don't need any evidence because you believe President Trump doesn't that mean unless President Trump says something different you aren't going to believe something different?
Here's what I responded to:

I believe him, I need no evidence, but since you insist on playing games, I'll assume you cannot back up your claim.

Thanks just the same.

What it looks like to me? "I believe President Trump without needing any evidence." if you don't need any evidence to believe, what sort of evidence to the contrary is going to make any difference? I heard a joke a long time ago that has helped me when I am in a discussion where it's a matter of someone not needing evidence to believe something:

Perhaps you’ve heard of the man who thought he was dead? In reality he was very much alive. His delusion became such a problem that his family finally paid for him to see a psychiatrist.

The psychiatrist spent many laborious sessions trying to convince the man he was still alive.

Nothing seemed to work.

Finally the doctor tried one last approach. He took out his medical books and proceeded to show the patient that dead men don’t bleed. After hours of tedious study, the patient seemed convinced that dead men don’t bleed.

“Do you now agree that dead men don’t bleed?” the doctor asked.

“Yes, I do,” the patient replied.

“Very well, then,” the doctor said.

He took out a pin and pricked the patent’s finger. Out came a trickle of blood.

The doctor asked, “What does that tell you?”

“Oh my goodness!” the patient exclaimed as he stared incredulously at his finger … “Dead men do bleed!!”

at this point? When someone says I don't need evidence because I believe "X" I pretty much know no matter what's presented it's not going to change anything, because the argument isn't based on what's around us, it's based on what someone has simply chosen to believe.

Did you not see that was the whole point. "I believe this, now prove to me what you claim is true". In short, no, it pretty much does not say that.

I'm sorry, but that post isn't nearly as clear as you seem to think it was.

Elementary, but I suppose you are doing the best you can..

well...considering what we were given to work with, you're right, I'd say we were indeed doing the best we can.
tulc(hopes that helps)

 

[Kenny'sID]

If you don't need any evidence because you believe President Trump doesn't that mean unless President Trump says something different you aren't going to believe something different?
Here's what I responded to:

What it looks like to me? "I believe President Trump without needing any evidence." if you don't need any evidence to believe, what sort of evidence to the contrary is going to make any difference? I heard a joke a long time ago that has helped me when I am in a discussion where it's a matter of someone not needing evidence to believe something:

at this point? When someone says I don't need evidence because I believe "X" I pretty much know no matter what's presented it's not going to change anything, because the argument isn't based on what's around us, it's based on what someone has simply chosen to believe.


I'm sorry, but that post isn't nearly as clear as you seem to think it was.


well...considering what we were given to work with, you're right, I'd say we were indeed doing the best we can.
tulc(hopes that helps)

First you waste my time with your completely ridiculous/means nothing post, and then turn right back around and do it again.

Hopefully that's clear enough for you to decipher. You had your chance now run along.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

No one knows what Mexico is going to do. The man is trying to get a wall built...HOWEVER.

If he wasn't, you all would be here griping about him not building a wall.

This thread testifies to the fact hate can make people babble all kinds of flaky things.

I would never gripe about Trump not building the wall - I would be happy he came to his senses.

Similarly, I would never have griped if he had failed to enact his promises to back out of the Iran deal, the Paris accord, NAFTA, and TPP.

The one promise I do blame him for not keeping is to make America great again - it was great and now he is sending us downhill.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

This should make everybody happy.
M-Bob

Trump: Mexico will pay for wall through incredible deal

Yeah, we know Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall and then he said he didn't say Mexico would pay for the wall. So, I guess he's back to saying Mexico will pay for the wall again. Back and forth.

Trump Campaigned on Mexico Paying for the Wall. Now He Says He 'Obviously' Didn't Mean It

 

[tulc]

First you waste my time with your completely ridiculous/means nothing post, and then turn right back around and do it again.

Ahhh! I'm sorry you think that, I might point out that just because you didn't agree/like what I posted? That doesn't mean what I posted didn't need to be pointed out.

Hopefully that's clear enough for you to decipher.

You understand, dismissing isn't actually refuting, right?

You had your chance now run along.

Sorry, if you're going to post in an open forum you kind of have to take what others post as part of the thread. If you don't want others to post responses to what you say you should probably make your comments in your blog instead of here.
tulc(just thought that also should be pointed out)

 

[ToddNotTodd]

First you waste my time with your completely ridiculous/means nothing post, and then turn right back around and do it again.

Hopefully that's clear enough for you to decipher. You had your chance now run along.

Tulc’s posts are not meaningless. I can clearly see that. I bet if you took a poll, others would agree. Your inability to see that is completely on you, not him...

 

[wing2000]

This thread testifies to the fact hate can make people babble all kinds of flaky things.

This thread is entertaining....it's a bit endearing how loyal you are to our grand leader.
The lack of reason and logic has little to do with hate.

 

[Allandavid]

Explain in depth how that relates to my post, and I'll answer it. That is unless you're just going to waste mine and the readers time, and if that is the case...don't.

Not an Orwell fan...?

It relates to your assertion concerning Dear Leader’s words always being misconstrued...that, in fact, what he says must always be regarded as the ‘truth’...

 

[Kenny'sID]

Tulc’s posts are not meaningless. I can clearly see that. I bet if you took a poll, others would agree. Your inability to see that is completely on you, not him...

Did Tulc offer a reply to my challenge? Seems not...and you? No? OK...looks like you have nothing to add either then.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Not an Orwell fan...?

It relates to your assertion concerning Dear Leader’s words always being misconstrued...that, in fact, what he says must always be regarded as the ‘truth’...

Not even sure what you expect from me here...I guess you're just talking to here yourself talk. Please warn me next time so I don't bother.

 

[tulc]

Did Tulc offer a reply to my challenge?

I did, that you didn't care for how I answered doesn't change the fact that I did answer it. (by the way? tulc is always spelled with a lower case "t" unless it's the first word in a sentence just thought that also should be pointed out)

Seems not (snip)

I sure did. See above.
tulc(wouldn't want Kenny'sID to think he was being ignored)