Economy The [Wall / Government Shutdown] Megathread

[phipps66]

"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.

I humbly disagree. Trump doesn't NEED to get the wall built. If the wall never happens, him and his base will just blame "obstructionist" democrats, sowing further hate and discontent between the sides. His base will go to bat for him at all costs.

 

[Strychnine]

Condescending bullshit from a condescending asshole.

 

[TheGreatA]

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.

You can say all of these hollow-sounding things, but you know, deep down, that it's just talk. Not real talk, just "talk". The kind of talk we can be having for 30 pages without any real results. This is politics we are talking about, not some guy promising you a reward, and failing to deliver. There is more at play here than just Trump's will to see things through, a world where circumstances are ever changing, a government where he will be met with opposition against any of his proposed changes.

People are clever enough to understand the difference, which is why not buying a politician's promises, literally, but rather taking them into account while keeping political realities in mind, is basically a starting point to becoming an intelligent voter.

"Making Mexico pay for it" was a sound-byte, not something that people took seriously, except in election-time fervor, which in America tends to be especially zealous. Nobody in Trump's camp will give a damn if he doesn't make Mexico literally pay for it. The people that pretend to care, are those who can politically gain from Trump failing to live up to his promises in literal detail. His "base" are far more willing to make compromises as long as he is esteemed to be achieving enough things. Which is what has happened with all prior American presidents, anyway. None of them have lived up to each of their promises, some barely lived up to any, their worth was gauged on how big of a percentage they were able to accomplish, and how well they were able to atleast see their will through in compromises, which is ultimately the real "skin" in the game, how capable you were at carving out compromises, with your political foes. The same will happen with Trump, he will be judged "relatively" speaking rather than "absolutely", once all is said and done.

 

[TheGreatA]

I humbly disagree. Trump doesn't NEED to get the wall built. If the wall never happens, him and his base will just blame "obstructionist" democrats, sowing further hate and discontent between the sides. His base will go to bat for him at all costs.

Even his "base" have those that stand firm, and those that stand on the fence. Those that stand on the fence will be more likely to recognize him as useless, if he cannot see through one of his bigger promises. The faith in his abilities will be lower by 2020 election, if he hasn't had his wall built, and his political opponents can constantly remind him of his ineffectiveness in that regard.

If the wall is up, it will give him a lot more breathing room. May not be a decisive factor in the end, as numerous factors are bound to come to play, but it is a very, very significant one, which is why Trump is trying to bull-doze this through, and why Democrats are trying to prevent him.

 

[SaiWa]

Even his "base" have those that stand firm, and those that stand on the fence. Those that stand on the fence will be more likely to recognize him as useless, if he cannot see through one of his bigger promises. The faith in his abilities will be lower by 2020 election, if he hasn't had his wall built, and his political opponents can constantly remind him of his ineffectiveness in that regard.

If the wall is up, it will give him a lot more breathing room. May not be a decisive factor in the end, as numerous factors are bound to come to play, but it is a very, very significant one, which is why Trump is trying to bull-doze this through, and why Democrats are trying to prevent him.

Most of people in the US do not want this wall... get it through your head... it's not worth it.

We can still spend money of border protection WITHOUT spending MORE money on walls.

Trump already received a billion and change specifically for walls and he has spent 6% of it so far. If it was THAT urgent most of that would be gone already and he'd be asking for more.

You are being bamboozled into believe this is actually an urgent issue when it isn't. Continue drinking the Kool Aid.

 

[TheGreatA]

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?

I said that it says something about democracy to the people who voted for a President, that he wasn't even able to see through one of his biggest promises. These people are bound to have a sour taste in their mouth, if their democratic will is not seen through.

It will be no different from the effect of any other President who failed to live up to a key promise. The voters will be discouraged, and this sort of thing is a reason as to why America's voting percentage is fairly low, the perceived ineffectiveness of the government in cashing on its promises.

 

[panamaican]

You can say all of these hollow-sounding things, but you know, deep down, that it's just talk. Not real talk, just "talk". The kind of talk we can be having for 30 pages without any real results. This is politics we are talking about, not some guy promising you a reward. There is more at play here than just Trump's will to see things through, a world where circumstances are ever changing, a government where he will be met with opposition against any of his proposed changes.

People are clever enough to understand the difference, which is why not buying a politician's promises, literally, but rather taking them into account while keeping political realities in mind, is basically a starting point to becoming an intelligent voter.

"Making Mexico pay for it" was a sound-byte, not something that people took seriously, except in election-time fervor. Nobody in Trump's camp will give a damn if he doesn't make Mexico literally pay for it. The people that pretend to care, are those who can politically gain from Trump failing to live up to his promises in literal detail. His "base" are far more willing to make compromises as long as he is esteemed to be achieving enough things. Which is what has happened with all prior American presidents, anyway. None of them have lived up to each of their promises, some barely lived up to any, their worth was gauged on how big of a percentage they were able to accomplish, and how well they were able to atleast see their will through in compromises, which is the real "skin" in the game, how capable you were at carving out compromises, with political foes. The same will happen with Trump.

Listen to yourself.

It's important to help Presidents stand by their promises. But it's not important what the exact promise was. The spirit of the promise is what matters, lol.

Maybe "Build a wall" was a sound byte too.

Not something that people took seriously, except in election time fervor. No one in Trump's camp will give a damn if he doesn't literally build a wall. The people that pretend to care, are those who can politically gain from Trump failing to live up to his promises in literal detail. His "base" are far more willing to make compromises as long as he is esteemed to be achieving enough things.

So some kind of border control, even if it doesn't involve a wall should be fine...right?

Or are you going to try and bullshit me with more "Half of the promise is a promise and the other half of the promise isn't a promise." Or "Half of the promise is meant literally but half of the promise isn't meant literally."

Then the shit ain't a promise, it's a political talking point.

 

[MikeMcMann]

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?

I do think it is accurate and fair to say many Trump supporters do see him (or want him to be) more like a Dictator.

The US electoral system actually does give a POTUS the chance to get near dictatorial powers. He needs to put forth an agenda that gets such support that he over whelming gets such support that both Houses elect officials that support that agenda. Then he can ram through his agenda without compromise.


On the other side is the fundamental precept of the US system which is if you do not put forth an agenda that can garner that type of overwhelming support than those who get elected in opposition to that agenda will have checks and balances to push for compromises such that neither side gets 100% of what they want.

The Repub and Dems reached such a partisan compromise with the prior $25B bill. Trump said 'no way, no compromises, give me what I want and demand with you getting nothing, or else...'

He has that right to fight for a no compromise solution but they then have the right to block it.

That is the US system at work the way it is intended. Checks and balances.

To try and over ride with a bogus declared emergency is to try and get around the Constitution and garner dictatorial powers. It is Trump saying 'even though I do not have the votes and control at all levels I will not allow the checks and balances to control me.' It would be an astounding abuse of powers (that will not survive a court challenge) and one that the Republicans will rue when the next Obama is in power.

 

[panamaican]

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?

I like him because he tends to couch his bullshit in better language than the others.

Pass the agenda...but part of the agenda isn't really the agenda. If you think the stated agenda is the agenda then you don't know the agenda. The real agenda is the part of the agenda that is the agenda. The other part of the agenda is the agenda that isn't the agenda.

<45>

 

[MikeMcMann]

You can say all of these hollow-sounding things, but you know, deep down, that it's just talk. Not real talk, just "talk". The kind of talk we can be having for 30 pages without any real results. This is politics we are talking about, not some guy promising you a reward, and failing to deliver. There is more at play here than just Trump's will to see things through, a world where circumstances are ever changing, a government where he will be met with opposition against any of his proposed changes.

People are clever enough to understand the difference, which is why not buying a politician's promises, literally, but rather taking them into account while keeping political realities in mind, is basically a starting point to becoming an intelligent voter.

"Making Mexico pay for it" was a sound-byte, not something that people took seriously, except in election-time fervor, which in America tends to be especially zealous. Nobody in Trump's camp will give a damn if he doesn't make Mexico literally pay for it. The people that pretend to care, are those who can politically gain from Trump failing to live up to his promises in literal detail. His "base" are far more willing to make compromises as long as he is esteemed to be achieving enough things. Which is what has happened with all prior American presidents, anyway. None of them have lived up to each of their promises, some barely lived up to any, their worth was gauged on how big of a percentage they were able to accomplish, and how well they were able to atleast see their will through in compromises, which is ultimately the real "skin" in the game, how capable you were at carving out compromises, with your political foes. The same will happen with Trump, he will be judged "relatively" rather than "absolutely", once all is said and done.

Haha wow. That is some crazy rationalization.

You have spun yourself into a box.

 

[TheGreatA]

Listen to yourself.

It's important to help Presidents stand by their promises. But it's not important what the exact promise was. The spirit of the promise is what matters, lol.

Maybe "Build a wall" was a sound byte too.

Not something that people took seriously, except in election time fervor. No one in Trump's camp will give a damn if he doesn't literally build a wall. The people that pretend to care, are those who can politically gain from Trump failing to live up to his promises in literal detail. His "base" are far more willing to make compromises as long as he is esteemed to be achieving enough things.

So some kind of border control, even if it doesn't involve a wall should be fine...right?

Or are you going to try and bullshit me with more "Half of the promise is a promise and the other half of the promise isn't a promise." Or "Half of the promise is meant literally but half of the promise isn't meant literally."

Then the shit ain't a promise, it's a political talking point.

Again, you're just "talking". When you decide to come with real talk instead of this "common man's facade", we can have a conversation.

Whether the promise matters to you on a personal level or not, is none of my concern. I'm talking about the real effects of what will happen, based on whether Trump will or will not build the wall, with or without Mexico's help, not how you perceive it. You are free to think Trump as a piece of shit for not living up to his promises in literal detail, but that has no impact whatsoever on general perceptions of what he's doing, particularly amongst his likely voter groups.

You need to be capable of separating your idealism on what politics ought to be, and what people's reactions ought to be, from what they are. Right now you seem incapable of doing that.

What I'm trying to tell you is that his base will not give a shit, about whether Mexico will pay a dime, and Trump is operating under that knowledge. They do give a shit about whether the wall will be up, or not. That is also understood by Trump.

What his political opponents' perceptions will be about his doings, is of no concern to Trump whatsoever, as we have probably already come to understand. It is not relevant to the conversation to even bring up the point about how the non-voters will perceive it.

 

[SaiWa]

Again, you're just "talking". When you decide to come with real talk instead of this "common man's facade", we can have a conversation.

He brought out the "real talk" angle... it's over @panamaican... you fukkin' lost this argument...!

 

[DangDaGawd]

I'm not surprised that his base isn't holding him accountable for anything he said during his campaign. Their support for him comes 100% from identity politics and not from any belief in his "policy."

I remember when he was first elected and everyone thought he wasn't going to pursue the wall at all, we had Trump supporters in here talking about how "building a wall" was just a metaphor for strengthening our immigration policies. They won't hold him accountable for anything.

 

[TheGreatA]

Haha wow. That is some crazy rationalization.

You have spun yourself into a box.

It is more as if I'm talking out of the box, and you people seem completely incapable of comprehending it, because of how deeply invested you are at the grass roots level, at the level where people are still hypocritical enough to act as if there is a "moral question" here, when there wouldn't be one as long as it was their own will being seen through, even partly so (as is usually the case in political decision-making).

I'm trying to elevate the perspective beyond a "common man's perspective", but perhaps this is the wrong place to do so. This is a bitchfest for individuals that wish to talk in circles. Pardon me for interrupting the little session you had going.

 

[DespicablePeep]

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.t

"I have nothing to back up my claims, I don´t believe you, but even if you are telling the truth its just you not being affected but the shut down."

Thats one powerful way to win an argument

 

[luckyshot]

Steel Prototype of the Wall Sawed Through... Awkward...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/im...WdXDpvkwlPsCcVRgeHbZq9BiDd0zl6bep9giltbmzHWSc

This whole situation would be bringing the lulz if there weren't 800k workers about to miss their rent because of it.

Hundreds of Coast Guard Families Show Up at Boston Food Bank

 

[panamaican]

Again, you're just "talking". When you decide to come with real talk instead of this "common man's facade", we can have a conversation.

Whether the promise matters to you on a personal level or not, is none of my concern. I'm talking about the real effects of what will happen, based on whether Trump will or will not build the wall, with or without Mexico's help, not how you perceive it. You are free to think Trump as a piece of shit for not living up to his promises in literal detail, but that has no impact whatsoever on general perceptions of what he's doing, particularly amongst his likely voter groups.

You need to be capable of separating your idealism on what politics ought to be, and what people's reactions ought to be, from what they are. Right now you seem incapable of doing that.

No, I'm pointing out that your "argument" is facile.

You state that Presidents should deliver on their promises. Then you state that the exact words of the promise aren't meant as the promise. THen you state that so long as some part of the intent is met then the "base" will be happy. That's a complete contradiction of your original statement about delivering on "promises". You reduced it to delivering on "intent" instead.

I'm not discussing how I perceive it. I'm discussing the actual promise as stated by the candidate prior to election. What are you talking about if not that?

And if you don't think literal detail matters - then why is the wall meant literally?

Those are basic questions that go to your original argument about the President and democracy so stop bullshitting and address them.

1) Why isn't the exact the words of the promise considered the promise?
2) If the promise isn't meant literally then why is the wall meant literally and not figuratively?

 

[DespicablePeep]

It's important to help Presidents stand by their promises.

like Obamacare not increasing health costs?

The wall is coming! MAGA!

Steel Prototype of the Wall Sawed Through... Awkward...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/im...WdXDpvkwlPsCcVRgeHbZq9BiDd0zl6bep9giltbmzHWSc

This whole situation would be bringing the lulz if there weren't almost a million workers about to miss their rent because of it.

Thats why you make a prototype

 

[sickc0d3r]

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.

He had two years and then we had another election.

 

[JDragon]

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

There have been elections since then that erased the majority his party held. Why is it a sign of a flawed democracy for you if parliament can block something a president wants to do?