Economy The [Wall / Government Shutdown] Megathread

Would you approve of Trump using emergency powers to build his wall?


  • Total voters
    92
  • Poll closed .
He ran on the promise of building a wall. Pretty obvious that it should be built, if America still has a functioning democracy.

Regardless of whether it's stupid or not, a waste of money or not, how does it reflect on American democracy if even a president cannot cash on his promises? Where's the incentive to vote if nothing will be done? When even the elected leader of a country is without authority?

Like with ObamaCare, or pulling out of Iraq, you had to get it done, because it was a large part of why people voted for the guy. If it hadn't been done, it would have reflected on the government even worse than an unfinished package or a premature withdrawal of troops.

A half-assed wall, or fence, is still better than no wall. At the very least it will serve to reinforce some kind of trust to the people that voted.

More recently, a wave of new congressmen and women ran on opposing Trump’s platform, and won overwhelmingly. Since the Congress controls spending and passage of laws, this is the relevant application of democracy to concern yourself with. Trump ran explicitly on funding the wall through direct payment by the Mexican government to avoid trade sanctions. He hasn’t gotten that payment, so the wall hasn’t been built. Congress is simply holding him accountable to his own campaign promises here.
 
Actually he ran on Mexico paying for the wall.

Pretty obvious that Mexico should pay for it if we're going to hold politicians to their words. What's the incentive to tell the truth if the president can simply lie and then make the American people culpable for his lie? He needs to wait until Mexico cuts us a $5-$10 billion check, at the very least it will serve to reinforce some kind of trust to the people that voted.

"Mexico paying for the wall" was not the main promise. And he already laid out that his plans on making "Mexico pay" was to pull out of what he considered to be bad trade deals and such. He can quiver out of making Mexico pay, but he cannot quiver out of building a wall.

Trump's voters won't give a damn whether Mexico directly pays for the wall or not. They just want it built. The only people who care about Mexico paying for it, are anti-Trumpers, who ultimately aren't Trump's concern, since they will never vote for him or support him anyway, regardless of what he does. His actual voter base is the priority, and will remain as such, often to the chagrin of those who did not vote for him.

You can have your little arguments over the details of it, arguing semantics, but this is the reality of it, the reality that Trump is facing. He needs to get the wall built. To save his own face, and to save the face of American democracy, for the people that voted for him.

Ineffeciency in that regard will not be forgiven, even if the process of getting the wall built ended up being different from how it was originally spelled out, in the heat of campaigning. All prior promises by presidential candidates, usually ended up being half-assed compromises, too. Nobody really "gets their way" in that regard.
 
Last edited:
The Orange Goof's minions started back pedaling on Mexico paying for the wall the moment Trump did haha absolutely spineless it's incredible.

"Well uhh.... uhh... He never said Mexico would sign over a check!!!"

I can't comprehend how anyone with even a pinch of integrity can support this goof and parrot his lies for him.

"SAD!"
 
More recently, a wave of new congressmen and women ran on opposing Trump’s platform, and won overwhelmingly. Since the Congress controls spending and passage of laws, this is the relevant application of democracy to concern yourself with. Trump ran explicitly on funding the wall through direct payment by the Mexican government to avoid trade sanctions. He hasn’t gotten that payment, so the wall hasn’t been built. Congress is simply holding him accountable to his own campaign promises here.

They would give up those funds to a Democrat president who had made the same promises in a heart-beat, lets not kid ourselves about that. It has nothing to do with anything but political power games. Being "held accountable" for political promises, is not a factor, certainly not when weighed against crippling a rival presidential candidate for 2020 campaign.

Only an absolute buffoon would believe it to be such.

This is about Democrats trying to hold a Republican president by the balls, and the Republican president trying to "brute force" his way to achieving one of his campaign promises, so that he will look strong to his voters, just like Democrats are trying to look strong to their own by opposing Trump. Compromises won't be made at this point unless they are absolutely necessary.
 
They would give up those funds to a Democrat president who had made the same promises in a heart-beat, lets not kid ourselves about that. It has nothing to do with anything but political power games. Being "held accountable" for political promises, is not a factor, certainly not when weighed against crippling a rival presidential candidate for 2020 campaign.

Only an absolute buffoon would believe it to be such.

This is about Democrats trying to hold a Republican president by the balls, and the Republican president trying to "brute force" his way to achieving one of his campaign promises, so that he will look strong to his voters, just like Democrats are trying to look strong to their own by opposing Trump. Compromises won't be made at this point unless they are absolutely necessary.

The democrats in Congress ran on nothing more than opposition to Trump, if they don’t oppose Trump, they’ll be challenged from the left in 2020. The things you mention aren’t mutually exclusive, and in this case the democrats in the congress need to cripple the incumbent ahead of 2020 to be accountable to their voters, and can do so simply by holding Trump to his explicitly stated campaign promise. If you’re going to frame this as an issue of applied democracy, you’ve got to accept that it extends beyond just one man in one office.
 
2 years of Republican congress, why didnt he passed it back then?

Also wasnt a deal offered to him where instead of a wall he would get a double fence and added security? why was that rejected?

The wall is a political statement, it has nothing to do with fighting illegal immigration.
 
The democrats in Congress ran on nothing more than opposition to Trump, if they don’t oppose Trump, they’ll be challenged from the left in 2020. The things you mention aren’t mutually exclusive, and in this case the democrats in the congress need to cripple the incumbent ahead of 2020 to be accountable to their voters, and can do so simply by holding Trump to his explicitly stated campaign promise. If you’re going to frame this as an issue of applied democracy, you’ve got to accept that it extends beyond just one man in one office.

I agree completely. It is not as if I do not see the angle from a Democrat perspective. They are doing what they need to be doing, as is Trump. From a political perspective.

The mistakes that have led to this scenario, were made a long time ago, and are no longer rectifiable, beyond some sort of "divine intervention" in the form of a unifying crisis. Trump shares a lot of blame for sure, for divisive politics, but on the other hand the opposition against him existed from day 1. The media hounded him, and the politicians scoffed at him.

If there are any "adults in the room" then I must be blind to them. National interests are taking a back-seat to political ones.
 
You can have your little arguments over the details of it, arguing semantics, but this is the reality of it, the reality that Trump is facing. He needs to get the wall built. To save his own face, and to save the face of American democracy, for the people that voted for him.

If he doesn't get a stupid wall built it won't humiliate me at all for voting for him . . . I knew what I was getting (more not getting HRC). I knew we'd have to deal with grandstanding and political theater.

But I did have a slight hope that he would try to change how we completed our budgets, etc.
 
Lmfao trump taking money away from victims of natural disasters for his own political benefit is classic trump.

As much as I think Trump's Wall approach has been stupid from the start (not accepting the $25B offered earlier for the Wall and other initiatives) my view has always been that if he takes it from the Military to pay, the Dem's should not care.

The Military Budget is bloated with special interest/croney money and taking some for that, even for an over stuffed wall initiative is better than just gifting it to croneys.


However I said it would not serve Trump well politically. He would satisfy the one side of his base who get the wall but he would frustrate the other side of his base who says 'never diminish military budgets. They must only ever go up'.

So now again we see Trump retreat from a prior positions when his base backs him down. The Wall that he was going to use Emergency powers and pay for with the MIlitary budget will now instead draw funds from the 'dictator money' funds. lol. Fewer Trump supporters in those disaster areas.

lol. What a clown Trump is and what total dupes his Trumpsters are.
 
"Mexico paying for the wall" was not the main promise. And he already laid out that his plans on making "Mexico pay" was to pull out of what he considered to be bad trade deals and such. He can quiver out of making Mexico pay, but he cannot quiver out of building a wall.

Trump's voters won't give a damn whether Mexico directly pays for the wall or not. They just want it built. The only people who care about Mexico paying for it, are anti-Trumpers, who ultimately aren't Trump's concern, since they will never vote for him or support him anyway, regardless of what he does. His actual voter base is the priority, and will remain as such, often to the chagrin of those who did not vote for him.

You can have your little arguments over the details of it, arguing semantics, but this is the reality of it, the reality that Trump is facing. He needs to get the wall built. To save his own face, and to save the face of American democracy, for the people that voted for him.

Ineffeciency in that regard will not be forgiven, even if the process of getting the wall built ended up being different from how it was originally spelled out, in the heat of campaigning. All prior promises by presidential candidates, usually ended up being half-assed compromises, too. Nobody really "gets their way" in that regard.
Sorry but that's revisionist history and contradicts your original post about keeping promises.

Wall + Mexico paying for it = what Trump promised.

Changing his promise after the fact is not being honest with the American people. You can't write some lengthy diatribe about standing behind what was promised and then saying that the exact words of that promise don't matter.

Little arguments over the details of things is the difference between being truthful and not. And when you're talking about how things are being paid for - it's not a little detail.

If your boss promises to give you a car as a reward for meeting a sales goal then it's not the truth if he turns around and says he's paying for the car out of your paycheck. You're saying that who pays for the car is a "little detail" and that as long as you get the car, your boss has delivered on his promise...even though he abandoned the "reward" portion.

Every halfway competent adult knows that's not true.

Another example of this "little detail". Someone says "I'm taking you to dinner and I've got a coupon that will give you a free meal." Then you get to the restaurant and they say you have to pay for your meal because they don't have a coupon. As long as they took you to dinner, they've met their promise even though they misled you about the cost?

If someone can change the promise after the fact then they never actually promised you anything. And giving in to people who do that is the antithesis of reinforcing trust. There can be no trust if someone can simply change the terms of the deal on their whim.
 
Sorry but I don’t believe you are a farmer. Let alone a soybean farmer. And even if you are and you are not being affected does not mean the sector as a whole is not.

If all farmers are like you and not affected why the $12 billion? Why did Trump specifically say this money was to help farmers affected by the tariffs? Just for fun? Just because Republicans love bailouts?

Soybean sales are down 94% due to the tariffs. Do you think there’s no affect on a market when 25% tariffs are put in it?

You sound like a troll to be honest. Spreading bullshit to muddy the waters. You post a story about you being a farmer of 7000 acres which cannot be verified. Here’s a link to the American Farm Bureau Federation detailing the impact to the US soybean market.

https://www.fb.org/market-intel/u.s.-soybean-exports-to-china-fall-sharply

I’m gonna call this my “Beating fantasy with facts” post

Unfortunately your article is from before China made the largest soybean purchase ever. And that's also when President Trump moved with subsidies.

We're actually a little bit ahead of last year.
As for being a soybean farmer I suppose you are correct because like every other farmer crops get rotated and never is just one planted.

Anyhoo the tariffs simply delayed demand and the shut down doesn't really matter to claims. Debtors are patient with these things as well for those operating on notes.
 
He ran on the promise of building a wall. Pretty obvious that it should be built, if America still has a functioning democracy.

Regardless of whether it's stupid or not, a waste of money or not, how does it reflect on American democracy if even a president cannot cash on his promises? Where's the incentive to vote if nothing will be done? When even the elected leader of a country is without authority?

Like with ObamaCare, or pulling out of Iraq, you had to get it done, because it was a large part of why people voted for the guy. If it hadn't been done, it would have reflected on the government even worse than an unfinished package or a premature withdrawal of troops.

A half-assed wall, or fence, is still better than no wall. At the very least it will serve to reinforce some kind of trust to the people that voted.
Aside from @panamaican 's response above (which I agree with, how the wall is paid for is inseparable from the idea of the wall as a campaign promise) there is the pesky fact that America also elects the members of the legislative branch. With GOP controlled legislative and executive branches they decided to prioritize tax cuts and made a failed attempt to repeal the ACA. America decided they did not like what the GOP is doing and Dems obtained control of the House.

What would it say about our Democracy if the country elected a D controlled House and the President got his way regardless without their votes? The system is working as the founding fathers intended. Folks on the left had to accept this during Obama's presidency where his agenda was DOA once Dems lost power (and as a center left guy I was extremely unhappy with this and viewed it as dysfunctional). This is nothing unusual. Trump is a historically unpopular president and the wall is an unpopular idea. Passing it now would be undemocratic, quite frankly, if he decides to bypass Congress and get it via declaring a national emergency. Now that would be unusual.
 
When Trump campaigned in 2016, he said Mexico would pay for the Wall

Recently , in front of reporters, he said he never meant Mexico would directly pay for the Wall, that he never meant they would write out a check. He meant they would pay for the Wall through the great Trade Deals he would strike.

Recent quote from Trump
"When -- during the campaign, I would say, "Mexico is going to pay for it," obviously, I never said this and I never meant they're going to write out a check. I said, "They're going to pay for it." They are," Trump said, going on to repeat his repeatedly debunked claim that Mexico would pay for the wall through the newly-revised NAFTA trade deal, now known as the USMCA agreement, still unapproved by Congress.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-claims-mexico-pay-wall-check/story?id=60290146

And below quote from memo he sent to WaPo while campaigning.

"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," the memo read.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-...xico-would-write-a-check-to-pay-for-the-wall/

-

Will interesting to see how his defenders will spin this.

Im sure everyone is for all of that. He wants a 5.7 billion for a wall, although he knows now he won't get it so him and the sycophants are changing language now. He was offered 25 billion before in with a DACA deal and turned it down. He was given 1.2 - 1.6 billion last year and so far has only used 6% of it....why only 6% if its a crisis?
He's just a con ma talking his normal crap, and being driven by right wing media nuts. There is no crisis, border crossings are the lowest in 40 years.



Just bumping these for reference for all since they are key all arguments on both sides.
 
Aside from @panamaican 's response above (which I agree with, how the wall is paid for is inseparable from the idea of the wall as a campaign promise) there is the pesky fact that America also elects the members of the legislative branch. With GOP controlled legislative and executive branches they decided to prioritize tax cuts and made a failed attempt to repeal the ACA. America decided they did not like what the GOP is doing and Dems obtained control of the House.

What would it say about our Democracy if the country elected a D controlled House and the President got his way regardless without their votes? The system is working as the founding fathers intended. Folks on the left had to accept this during Obama's presidency where his agenda was DOA once Dems lost power (and as a center left guy I was extremely unhappy with this and viewed it as dysfunctional). This is nothing unusual. Trump is a historically unpopular president and the wall is an unpopular idea. Passing it now would be undemocratic, quite frankly, if he decides to bypass Congress and get it via declaring a national emergency. Now that would be unusual.
Maybe he thinks our President is more like a dictator?
 
Maybe he thinks our President is more like a dictator?
Yeah seriously. But his initial premise was that failure to get the President's agenda passed said something about our democracy, so I'm pretty confused. Maybe he just made an error about how the system works?
 
He ran on the promise of building a wall. Pretty obvious that it should be built, if America still has a functioning democracy.

Regardless of whether it's stupid or not, a waste of money or not, how does it reflect on American democracy if even a president cannot cash on his promises? Where's the incentive to vote if nothing will be done? When even the elected leader of a country is without authority?

Like with ObamaCare, or pulling out of Iraq, you had to get it done, because it was a large part of why people voted for the guy. If it hadn't been done, it would have reflected on the government even worse than an unfinished package or a premature withdrawal of troops.

A half-assed wall, or fence, is still better than no wall. At the very least it will serve to reinforce some kind of trust to the people that voted.
This happens a lot in American politics. Often the voters forget what the campaign promises were so no one really gets too upset. But the fact that he made such unrealistic and outright unachievable claims during his campaign is what sets him apart. In the case of the wall, when the President made such an outrageous claim that Mexico would pay for it, people remembered that, and are holding him to it. I think just it is important to keep campaign promises, but the taxpayer paying for the wall wasn't the promise made.

I'm still waiting for the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. To quote Mr. Trump, "Obamacare. We're going to repeal it, we're going to replace it, get something great. Repeal it, replace it, get something great!" and he also said "the government's gonna pay for it. But we're going to save so much money on the other side. But for the most it's going to be a private plan and people are going to be able to go out and negotiate great plans with lots of different competition with lots of competitors with great companies and they can have their doctors, they can have plans, they can have everything."

Not to mention, about pharma, "Because the drug companies have an unbelievable lobby. And these guys that run for office, that are on my left and right and plenty of others, they're all taken care of by the drug companies. And they're never going to put out competitive bidding. So I said to myself wow, let me do some numbers. If we competitively bid, drugs in the United States, we can save as much as $300 billion a year."
 
Back
Top