Economy The [Wall / Government Shutdown] Megathread

[TheGreatA]

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?

I have stated something that is real. I have isolated the meat of the promise from what was a political slogan intended to win a race. You have done none of such work, and insist on something that even to Trump himself probably sounded unrealistic (yet highly controversial for a heated presidential race).

When Trump voters heard "I'm going to build a wall, and make Mexico pay for it". They did not hear "lets make Mexico pay for something". The envisioned a wall being built. If they wanted Mexico to pay for something, they would have made "making Mexico pay" a meme, rather than "building a wall".

To Trump voters, from their perspective, the wall is of primary importance, and making Mexico pay is, at best, of secondary importance. Trump, facing shrinking levels of power at the office, not to mention the reality of politics, is putting all of his efforts into achieving what is of primary importance to his voters, rather than trying to forcefully, unsuccesfully, insist on something that was of secondary importance, which is making "Mexico pay".

Trump voters, despite their perceived "low intelligence" and tribalism, are still intelligent enough to realize what the President is doing, and thus are willing to let the "Mexico pay" part slip aside, as long as their primary goals are met. The same way that any "political side" will let an "inconvenient" part of a promise slip, since it had already fulfilled its purpose in creating interest to "win" the race, to achieve the "greater objective" of putting "your man" into power.

Obama too was supposed to shut down Guantanamo Bay, but he didn't, however he did pull out of Iraq which was seen as the bigger goal, and thus his reputation stayed intact. If he had failed to achieve both, his reputation may not have been as salvageable.

 

[kpt018]

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.

And Obama supporters had a sour taste in their mouths once Ds lost power and his agenda stalled. And if Trump gets the wall the Ds in the country, who voted for a D controlled House, will have a sour taste in their mouths. Particularly those of us who think bills should get passed the way the law intends instead of circumventing the law and causing collateral damage (like pulling emergency funding).

There are very good, logical safeguards that our founders built into the system and we should not bypass them because people in the country will be mad their agenda didn't get passed.

There is no way to avoid this, ever, under any president. Difference of opinion is probably as old as language!

Think about what you're saying/implying. Do you really think a wall, which has something like 35% approval rating get passed because a minority of the country will be mad if it doesn't? And a policy that doesn't have the votes in a co-equal branch of government? This is getting silly man.

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.

And you think that circumventing the constitution would improve the perceived effectiveness of government? Maybe for some but it would actually be a sign of ineffectiveness.

 

[cleetus]

good with me, most of the country is a fuckin third world shit hole that i wouldn't even want to fly over, let alone fuckin drive through again.

list of states 1000x shittier than california:
1. Nevada (what a fuckin shit hole jesus)
2. Utah (fuckin mormons holy fuck)
3. Idaho (we get it, you grow potatoes - try including something else. although twin falls is a nice town).
4. alaska - people that hate living there so much they rather kill themselves
5. arizona - nobody there except like 3 cities, and only one is a cool place (tucson). phoenix - total shit hole, i would rather fuck a homeless camp in Los Angeles before going back to phoenix
6. montana - hard to even judge since there's fuckin nobody there, just a big fuckin cold wasteland
7. wyoming - shit hole. bunch of retards with guns that don't even know how to use those guns. only redeeming credit is yellowstone national park, one of the best fuckin places in the world
8. new mexico - arizona light, like half the calories and takes piss water and makes it taste even pissier. can do without this fuckin place
9. colorado - liberals too stupid to know anything about politics and self righteous enough to still make crybaby demands. combined with redneck mountain fucks and you got a tiny purple cock trying to fuck the neighboring states but can't due to short reach
10. north and south dakota - why the fuck are there two of these shit holes. it's like having herpes in your dick hole and on your balls at the same time
11. minnesota - snowy fuckin shit hole and people don't even know what's going on. also fuck your accents, it's called fuckin soda not pop you dipshits
12. wisconsin - hey look, more snow and more shit. sign me up for that while i go light myself on fuckin fire
13. nebraska - a state so boring you don't even acknowledge it's existence outside of college football
14. kansas - rednecks that are so culturally inept that they don't get wizard of oz references
15. oklahoma - other than the musical, this place is like having an asshole that never runs out of shit to wipe
16. arkansas - a state where the adults can't even spell the word "education"
17. iowa - corn sucking dipshits that are two twat hairs away from having baby balls.
18. michigan - in case you forgot about snowy shit holes - lets bring up another one
19. missouri - a state so shitty that it's considered a humanitarian crisis
20. mississippi - a state so racist that every time something racist happens in the news everyone in america thinks "must've been mississippi." also a third world shit hole with so much poor white trash that we probably need to start launching mother fuckers into the sun
21. alabama - lol, i won't even. too easy
22. georgia - if vanilla ice cream was a state, it'd be this boring shit hole of a fuck up
23. florida - just, eat a dick florida
24. north / south carolina - your hay day was the revolutionary war. then, you continued to exist and it was all shit from there
25. pennsylvania - philly might literally be the worst place on earth, and that includes if you shoved mississippi up alabama's ass then shoved it down alaska's dick hole for some weird white trash haggis clusterfuck
26. vermont - fuck your hippy fuckin ice cream fuckers. also nobody fuckin lives there, how is it i can drive for so long in such a small shit hole state and never fuckin see anyone else. nobody is supposed to fuckin live there you idiots
27. maine - a state so cold that other cold snowy shit hole states say "at least we aren't fuckin maine, holy shit"

i'm sure i'm forgetting some but whatever, fuck those 27. i'd build the wall myself just so people from those states never ever try to sneak into my awesome state for the fuckin sunshine. you can freeze your balls off in wyoming and go defrost them in arizona you arrogant cockfucks.

awesome states: texas and hawaii. i'd never live in texas but the people there are so hysterically crazy that how can i not love them, and hawaii is just fuckin rad. anywhere else is lukewarm pee or a giant shit in my toilet that won't flush.

You forgot NJ, another progressive shithole.

 

[phipps66]

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.

I can see your point, but seeing your location is Finland, you just may not know the nuances of American politics. The way I feel, (and I could be wrong) is summed by the quoted post below. Trump won because of identity politics, and help from the electoral college system. His supporters are only interested in winning. And if they don't get a win, they'll easily find someone blame, acting like the system isn't fair or it was rigged. Hence, why you heard even before the election that it was rigged, pre-damage control in the event of a Trump loss. The truth is, Trump lost his chance for the wall when the Dems took the house. He had a lot of time to make it happen while republicans controlled all branches. I see you have a lot of simultaneous convos going on in here, feel free to PM if you wanna chat more about it.

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]

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?

It is not something that the President wants to do. It is something that the people wanted, by voting him in power. It was one of his main promises, particularly early on, that gained interest.

There are no excuses for why the wall hasn't been built, Trump has had enough years to achieve the feat, prior to Democrats gaining such power. America has low levels of political interest and U.S. presidents not cashing on their main promises, is one of the reasons as to why.

What I'm witnessing on the part of Trump and Democrats is a very clear example of why people are losing faith in politics, as a vehicle to see their democratic will through. It is just a matter of winning elections, rather than putting national interests first. When your "guy" wins, the other "guy" is there to obstruct him. And on and on it goes, with nothing being done.

 

[kpt018]

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>

Shit man, reading that gave me a headache.

 

[shockaholic12]

"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 agree with this mostly. I just think he’s current claims of how Mexico will indirectly pay for it are not convincing anyone but his most adamant base supporters. I think his poor approach is turning off those who supported him in the election mostly as the better of two bad candidates.

He’s had some opportunities, like the address earlier this week, to really lay out a budget and financing plan for this wall. To get serious about it and not just argue with other politicians from an emotional talking points. He fumbled it badly.

Now the portion of his voters who held their nose and voted for him over Hillary, the part of his base which isn’t ride or die, is witnessing some terrible decision making over and over again. I think they didn’t want the wall at absolutely any cost but
would get behind the idea done right.
A few years later it’s clear Trump isn’t effective at leading, and these voters are shaking their heads at how we got here and may be looking at other republicans come election or choosing not to vote at all.

 

[ens189]

I am one of the lucky ones with almost a decade of service at the GS-12/13 level and have built my savings up accordingly. I feel really bad for the guys at the lower ends of the pay scale who must be in an absolute panic right now. I remember what it was like getting academy paychecks and it wasn't fun.

 

[zebby23]

Uuuuh . . .

This town that Acosta is in has areas with no barrriers or a 4 foot high chain link fence. Still the residents feel no threat

 

[kpt018]

It is not something that the President wants to do. It is something that the people wanted, by voting him in power. It was one of his main promises, particularly early on, that gained interest.

There are no excuses for why the wall hasn't been built, Trump has had enough years to achieve the feat, prior to Democrats gaining such power. America has low levels of political interest and U.S. presidents not cashing on their main promises, is one of the reasons as to why.

What I'm witnessing on the part of Trump and Democrats is a very clear example of why people are losing faith in politics, as a vehicle to see their democratic will through. It is just a matter of winning elections, rather than putting national interests first. When your "guy" wins, the other "guy" is there to obstruct him. And on and on it goes, with nothing being done.

"The people"? Who are you referring to? Seems like you're purposefully ignoring all the people that did not vote for him, that he's historically unpopular and the "other" people voted for a D controlled House with the goal of blocking what they view as bad policy. Why don't they count?

And to state that nothing was done is absolutely false. Obama passed major healthcare reform and Trump passed a major tax cuts bill. He and the GOP made that their priority instead of the wall. His supporters are wrong - they should lose faith in Trump not the system.

 

[TheGreatA]

I can see your point, but seeing your location is Finland, you just may not know the nuances of American politics. The way I feel, (and I could be wrong) is summed by the quoted post below. Trump won because of identity politics, and help from the electoral college system. His supporters are only interested in winning. And if they don't get a win, they'll easily find someone blame, acting like the system isn't fair or it was rigged. Hence, why you heard even before the election that it was rigged, pre-damage control in the event of a Trump loss. The truth is, Trump lost his chance for the wall when the Dems took the house. He had a lot of time to make it happen while republicans controlled all branches. I see you have a lot of simultaneous convos going on in here, feel free to PM if you wanna chat more about it.

People have kept using my "Finnish-ness" as a crutch to discredit my arguments for years, I'm not unaccustomed to that.

If a guy wanted to talk to me about Finnish politics, and his opinions on it, I wouldn't discourage him by saying "well, you just don't know what you're talking about because you're not Finnish", unless I was on the losing side of the argument.

If you have your shit together in an argument, you don't need to rely on crutches such as a preconceived notion of how much a "foreigner" is supposed to know or not to know. You can just debunk their weak arguments, in that case.

Nobody needs to remind me that I'm Finnish, and not American, believe me, I know. I've heard that one for over a decade. While all this time, probably having had a more significant interest in American politics than most Americans themselves.

 

[MikeMcMann]

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

its more than facile imo.

What @TheGreatA is saying goes against what is a fundamental precept of the stated Republican position which Republican voters say is foundational for them (even if the party rarely delivers on it).

If what he is now saying is true Republicans give up the right to ask Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez how they will pay for the health care and other social services at the front of their platform. 'Mexico will pay for it' is the only answer needed and the question should be dropped because TheGreatA is saying 'how it is paid for is not the issue only the core of the promise is'. Well the core of the promise (the "meat") is HealthCare and other Social services so lets not fuss over how it will be paid for.

I ask the TheGreatA now if he would agree with that? If they just said Mexico would he say that should be accepted and the services delivered even if they had to go into general revenues after the fact?

 

[TheGreatA]

"The people"? Who are you referring to? Seems like you're purposefully ignoring all the people that did not vote for him, that he's historically unpopular and the "other" people voted for a D controlled House with the goal of blocking what they view as bad policy. Why don't they count?

And to state that nothing was done is absolutely false. Obama passed major healthcare reform and Trump passed a major tax cuts bill. He and the GOP made that their priority instead of the wall. His supporters are wrong - they should lose faith in Trump not the system.

I'm obviously referring to the people that voted for him.

You don't need to treat me as a fool. It is quite obvious that I'm not making the argument that Trump failing to cash on his promises will discredit democracy to people who already despise him. Obviously, it won't. To them, it will be democracy's success. But to the people that voted for him, his inability to function as a leader will be deemed a crippling blow to the legitimacy of the government. We already know this, the tendency to blame government and the democratic system when "your guy" is not getting enough changes done. This is something that is obvious, and happens on all political sides, which suddenly become "anti-government" out of bitterness, when their "man" failed to deliver, and the opposition grabs power.

Inevitably, the people who voted for Trump will lose faith in both.

To me, I prefer that a candidate, even one that I oppose, will be able to apply their political program. I'm not in favour of obstructionist politics, but rather, "every dog has its day" politics. I can live with silly shit being done, but I cannot live with shit not being done, because it discredits the people's democratic will.

This might seem foreign to a lot of people who are used to obstructionism and bullshit compromises, but that would be my "ideal", and I have steadily made the same claims regardless of who was in power, and where. The people's will, and that we have a system in place which can see it through, is of greater concern to me, than individual politicians and their little games.

 

[Goonerview]

What is so controversial about defending your own borders

 

[phipps66]

People have kept using my "Finnish-ness" as a crutch to discredit my arguments for years, I'm not unaccustomed to that.

If a guy wanted to talk to me about Finnish politics, and his opinions on it, I wouldn't discourage him by saying "well, you just don't know what you're talking about because you're not Finnish", unless I was on the losing side of the argument.

If you have your shit together in an argument, you don't need to rely on crutches such as a preconceived notion of how much a "foreigner" is supposed to know or not to know. You can just debunk their weak arguments, in that case.

Nobody needs to remind me that I'm Finnish, and not American, believe me, I know. I've heard that one for over a decade. While all this time, probably having had a more significant interest in American politics than most American themselves.

Well if I meant to offend you, I truly didn't mean to. There is a just a lot of tribalism/nationalism. I am trying to help you understand what's going on. I have specific knowledge, being one of the federal workers being forced to work without pay. I do in fact have my shit together.
Where you say: What I'm witnessing on the part of Trump and Democrats is a very clear example of why people are losing faith in politics, as a vehicle to see their democratic will through. It is just a matter of winning elections, rather than putting national interests first. When your "guy" wins, the other "guy" is there to obstruct him. And on and on it goes, with nothing being done.

I seem to seeing the opposite. A lot of people are getting involved, mostly by registering to vote, voting, sharing stuff on social media, etc. Politics seems to be morphing into a team sport you can follow, instead of something distant lawyers and rich people do.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

People have kept using my "Finnish-ness" as a crutch to discredit my arguments for years, I'm not unaccustomed to that.

If a guy wanted to talk to me about Finnish politics, and his opinions on it, I wouldn't discourage him by saying "well, you just don't know what you're talking about because you're not Finnish", unless I was on the losing side of the argument.

If you have your shit together in an argument, you don't need to rely on crutches such as a preconceived notion of how much a "foreigner" is supposed to know or not to know. You can just debunk their weak arguments, in that case.

Nobody needs to remind me that I'm Finnish, and not American, believe me, I know. I've heard that one for over a decade. While all this time, probably having had a more significant interest in American politics than most American themselves.

I'm not familiar with your posts so I don't know if we agree on politics. But this statement I agree with. As a Canadian who loves America I've run into the same shit.

 

[DangDaGawd]

What is so controversial about defending your own borders

When the method of defending them is very expensive and has little chance of making an actual impact.

 

[TheGreatA]

Well if I meant to offend you, I truly didn't mean to. There is a just a lot of tribalism/nationalism. I am trying to help you understand what's going on. I have specific knowledge, being one of the federal workers being forced to work without pay. I do in fact have my shit together.
Where you say: What I'm witnessing on the part of Trump and Democrats is a very clear example of why people are losing faith in politics, as a vehicle to see their democratic will through. It is just a matter of winning elections, rather than putting national interests first. When your "guy" wins, the other "guy" is there to obstruct him. And on and on it goes, with nothing being done.

I seem to seeing the opposite. A lot of people are getting involved, mostly by registering to vote, voting, sharing stuff on social media, etc. Politics seems to be morphing into a team sport you can follow, instead of something distant lawyers and rich people do.

I'm not talking about you specifically, you have made no such offense. It had been brought up as a point before, so I just felt like I needed to address the point, before it gets out of hand. The last couple of weeks, most of my statements have been met with the same derision, "well, you're Finnish, so what do you know?", as if this is enough to dismiss these statements as untrue.

It is not offensive to me, it is what is to be expected. If I did not want to deal with it, I would simply not display my location.

What you were saying is not really different from what I have been saying. We understand these tendencies among Trump voters. Instead of moralizing them, or trying to change their behaviour, I'm simply detailing the behaviour as it is, and I'm trying to explain why Trump acts the way he does, considering that he has such a base of voters, that he can rely on, to do certain things.

The psychology behind Trump's "winning" is a bit different from the political contests that some may have become used to. In "winning", truths can sometimes take a back-seat to hyperbole, provided that this hyperbole achieves an objective. The people that vote for him are not so much concerned with pure facts or logic (very few people are, in general), as much as they are concerned with what they can gain.

A wall would be seen as enough of a gain, making Mexico pay would be a little bit of extra on top, but this is the kind of hyperbole that Trump voters are perfectly willing to live with, as long as it accomplishes their primary objectives.

Trump's "game" is to distract people with a controversial position (for example making Mexico pay) so that he can accomplish his true objective (build a wall). He has used this to great effect for the entirety of his career, and it is a wonder how so many haven't picked up on the little trick he has, his own means of achieving "compromise" (by denouncing his previously wildly controversial position in favour of a comparatively more rational one). His "base" fully understands it, they know "him" and his ways of doing things. His opposition, often seems clueless, so I'm trying to enlighten people as to what is actually happening. This has gone on for years now so I think that we can move onto detailing things as they exist, instead of reacting to whatever he's doing, on a constant basis.

 

[kpt018]

I'm obviously referring to the people that voted for him.

You don't need to treat me as a fool. It is quite obvious that I'm not making the argument that Trump failing to cash on his promises will discredit democracy to people who already despise him.

I'm not treating you like a fool I just think the argument you're making is foolish. People throughout our history have disagreed with those in power to varying degrees and life goes on. I think we're fine to piss off something like 35% of people if it means avoiding bad policy and carrying out the will of the other 65%. Seems like you're arguing it shouldn't be the other way because Trump won but you're ignoring co-equal branches of government. Like I said, Trump voters are misplacing their distrust. They behave like a cult. So we give them their policy even if it's bad policy?

Obviously, it won't. To them, it will be democracy's success. But to the people that voted for him, his inability to function as a leader will be deemed a crippling blow to the legitimacy of the government. We already know this, the tendency to blame government and the democratic system when "your guy" is not getting enough changes done. This is something that is obvious.

Better informed people would view the wall going up (at this point) as a crippling blow to democracy. If it goes up now that means either Democrats folded (demoralizing over half the country) or Trump circumvented the process to get his wall by pulling funding from other necessary sources (emergency funding). That my friend is a blow to democracy, not caving in to a rabid minority.

Inevitably, the people who voted for Trump will lose faith in both.

I'm not convinced we should be concerned about that. Bad policy is bad policy.

To me, I prefer that a candidate, even one that I oppose, will be able to apply their political program. I'm not in favour of obstructionist politics, but rather, "every dog has its day" politics. I can live with silly shit being done, but I cannot live with shit not being done, because it discredits the people's democratic will.

That's reasonable, of course, but again Obama and Trump both passed major bills. "shit not getting done" is just the shit some people didn't want. That's democracy.

And btw I am not naive to the state of our politics now. I think they're in really bad shape and certainly the worst of my lifetime (I'm 38). I do not think folding on the wall changes that one bit though. If I was convinced giving these guys the wall would heal our politics it would be a no brainer, but obviously it's crazy to believe that.

This might seem foreign to a lot of people who are used to obstructionism and bullshit compromises, but that would be my "ideal", and I have steadily made the same claims regardless of who was in power, and where. The people's will, and that we have a system in place which can see it through, is of greater concern to me, than individual politicians and their little games.

Again, this is reasonable but I think you're misguided on what the people's will actually is. You seemingly think presidential elections are the only ones that matter but the legislative branch is a co-equal branch of government. That is how the people's will is reflected in government.

 

[spamking]

This town that Acosta is in has areas with no barrriers or a 4 foot high chain link fence. Still the residents feel no threat

Who knows man . . . it really is crazy that folks will seemingly swim across a river or try to go under some barrier but ignore the places like you mention.

Doesn't make any sense.