White House Will 'Look Into' Fox News' Decision to Stop Broadcasting Trump Rallies

[TLK Valentine]

That's a new one on me, but I'm getting the idea that the approach is to throw whatever sounds awful at the President and see if someone believes it.

I do recall a Mexican construction company bidding for the border wall contract...

Besides, Mexico is still going to pay for it, right?

 

[Willie T]

He never said that the Mexicans were going to build it. He did, however, say on a number of occasions that he would get them to pay for it... which... lolol

And with this latest new trade agreement, Mexico just might already be doing that very thing.

 

[Ringo84]

There's a classic Simpsons episode where everyone in Springfield gets in touch with their inner child by acting like Bart, which actually prompts Bart to behave well. The idea is that when everyone else is acting up, it suddenly doesn't make you stand out to play pranks and say rude things to people.

That's what's happening here. Donny's act was new a few years ago. But he never says anything new or insightful (ha ha) in his rallies; it's the same old "tremendous/yuuuge/sad/"believe me" braggadocio each time, and the carnival barker act may finally be getting old.

Good.
Ringo

 

[Tanj]

And with this latest new trade agreement, Mexico just might already be doing that very thing.

Or unicorns, because having read through the new trade agreement, there's as much evidence of Mexico paying for the wall as there is for unicorns.

 

[Allandavid]

Trump TV stops airing every single Trump rally

 

[LostMarbels]

I do recall a Mexican construction company bidding for the border wall contract...

Besides, Mexico is still going to pay for it, right?

Or unicorns, because having read through the new trade agreement, there's as much evidence of Mexico paying for the wall as there is for unicorns.

Why do you not get that entire spiel was to troll the media into giving the topic coverage and air time? Look at how much it gets discussed. Then when people tell Trump it isn't going to happen, he responds the wall just got 10 feet higher. And... they start talking about it again.

Maybe he can pull it off. Personally I never really cared if he did. I just want the wall.

 

[mark46]

I was referring to the claim that 'the Mexicans were going to build a wall.' That is why I quoted the statement and also put it in bold print in the post above.

Where else would the workers come from?

 

[Fantine]

Albion said: ↑
I was referring to the claim that 'the Mexicans were going to build a wall.' That is why I quoted the statement and also put it in bold print in the post above.

Well, given the much documented evidence that Trump failed to pay contractors for work done on his buildings numerous times, it is certainly possible that if Mexicans build the wall they might not receive their legitimately earned salaries

 

[KCfromNC]

Why do you not get that entire spiel was to troll the media into giving the topic coverage and air time? Look at how much it gets discussed. Then when people tell Trump it isn't going to happen, he responds the wall just got 10 feet higher. And... they start talking about it again.

Yes, I think most people know he was lying about this (and many other things). The weird part is, some people still voted for him despite it.

 

[DaisyDay]

I just want the wall.

Where do you want the wall when the border is in the middle of the Rio Grande?

 

[Desk trauma]

Where do you want the wall when the border is in the middle of the Rio Grande?

The Mexican side. No, really.

 

[LostMarbels]

Where do you want the wall when the border is in the middle of the Rio Grande?

Well for obvious reasons such as the ability to repair, maintain, and sovereignty the wall has to be on US soil. By putting a barrier directly on a border (or property line) the individuals on the other side have direct access to that barrier while still in their own land/property. By offsetting it away form the actual boarder by 6 or so feet, the wall will be on US soil, and fully under the sovereignty of the US. This also gives room for actions to occur on US land in front of the wall. Including construction, repair, and enforcement.

If no room is given in front of the Wall then others can legally occupy and undermine that space, being that it is on their soil. But by creating a small but actionable buffer an individual would already have to have illegally entered the US to be at the face of the wall in the first place.

 

[FenderTL5]

Well for obvious reasons such as the ability to repair, maintain, and sovereignty the wall has to be on US soil. By putting a barrier directly on a border (or property line) the individuals on the other side have direct access to that barrier while still in their own land/property. By offsetting it away form the actual boarder by 6 or so feet, the wall will be on US soil, and fully under the sovereignty of the US. This also gives room for actions to occur on US land in front of the wall. Including construction, repair, and enforcement.

If no room is given in front of the Wall then others can legally occupy and undermine that space, being that it is on their soil. But by creating a small but actionable buffer an individual would already have to have illegally entered the US to be at the face of the wall in the first place.

It would make an interesting challenge when it comes to water usage.

 

[mark46]

Any barrier would be on US soil no man's land on the other side (and in US territory). trump would have guns and cameras for guard at the top of the wall. There would be a court house and a holding facility on the other side, to hold folks pending trial or deportation.

 

[Yarddog]

Donald's going to have to do something new in order to stay relevant... one would think, as an entertainer, he would already know this.

Maybe he's gonna go out on the street and shoot someone to see if his boast will bring up his ratings.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Maybe he's gonna go out on the street and shoot someone to see if his boast will bring up his ratings.

If it's a mime, it'll be a public service...

 

[LostMarbels]

It would make an interesting challenge when it comes to water usage.

Well, water usage has absolutely nothing to do with immigration control or strengthening borders. I think such conflations are a problem in current politics. A wall, has absolutely zero to do with water rights and are entirely separate issues. Both should be addressed as separate issues as well.

 

[Desk trauma]

Well, water usage has absolutely nothing to do with immigration control or strengthening borders. I think such conflations are a problem in current politics. A wall, has absolutely zero to do with water rights and are entirely separate issues. Both should be addressed as separate issues as well.

A concrete monstrosity on the boarder would absolutely impact water rights as it would change how water flows across the boarder likely in violation of preexisting treaties.

 

[LostMarbels]

A concrete monstrosity on the boarder would absolutely impact water rights as it would change how water flows across the boarder likely in violation of preexisting treaties.

Were not building the great wall of China here. Not only is it permeable, allowing runoff/rainwater, the IBWC only deals with the rio grand itself, and not ground water from the American side.

 

[Desk trauma]

Were not building the great wall of China here.

As yet nothing is being built and the erratic nature of the current administration leaves all details up in the air.