Hail To The Chief (Read Mod Warning In OP)

Leroy42 · 27-01-2017 02:47PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

A little bit embarrassing to be involved in a march lead by a person who believes in Sharia Law and thinks women not being allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia is not a big deal.

She may have been the catalyst for getting the march together but you can't seriously believe that all those people in Washington, New York, London and many other places were marching because of their agreement with Sharia Law.

I think the problems is stemming from the fact that many Trump supporters are just that, they support Trump. His actually policies are not important as much as he is, they will agree with whatever he says simply because he is Trump.

Most sane people don't blindly follow like that. Like others have said, you march for a cause, it is highly likely that many others in the march will have very different views to you on other things. The water protests for example. Do you think everyone agreed with each other on abortion rights, or religious education, or immigration, or the EU?

orubiru · 27-01-2017 02:47PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

It seems you've been triggered over the conspiracy stuff.

Not at all. It's interesting.

You don't think it's interesting that people can tear down a group of folks without offering any real alternative?

I mean you could look at the losing sides in the Brexit vote and the US elections and honestly ask what were they offering as an alternative?

So it was fine to say "don't vote Trump". When your alternative is "vote Hillary", though? Haha. Come on guys.

You could say the same about "Fake News". You have to confront Fake News with solid actual real factual news not flimsy "shut up, bigot" or "you made my point" or "ignore button is a godsend".

That is exactly how you lose these arguments.

Trumps victory is a MASSIVE defeat for anyone who would want to use common sense and logic to win an argument.

FFS he has people talking about "Alternative Facts". Alternative. Facts.

What's your response to Alternative Facts? Real Facts?

Nah, it's "hurr durr... ignore button".

Is there a sarcastic slow clap emoji?

(Hm, OK, maybe I am a bit triggered :P)

BabyCheeses · 27-01-2017 02:55PM

B0jangles wrote: »

Remember when Trump talked about bringing back jobs, GOOD jobs to America?

Strange then that his administration is looking to cut 10,000 good jobs already, not important ones though, just EPA ones, you know the people whose job it is to keep lead out of the drinking water, to see that companies don't dump toxic waste wherever they want

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049052

Don't worry comrade, plenty of work will there be in the mines and factories. Our glorious leader tells companies they stay, only half jobs leave then.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Just remember though, Mexico is gonna pay for this wall guys. Just remember that.

This one is a head scratcher. American businesses pay a tax on goods coming into the country from Mexico. This costs get passed onto the consumer who is in America. People in America are paying for the wall in that situation, no money is leaving Mexico.

At best you can say that Mexico loses trade but it will damage some of the southern states who have a **** enough time as it is. Money is still not leaving Mexico. I can't believe the idiots are buying it. Their stuff gets more expensive as they claim that it is Mexico paying for the wall.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

What kind of intervention do you hope for?

Drones :pac:

Satriale · 27-01-2017 02:55PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

It's been like that for a while now. Thankfully they've outed themselves hilariously over and over again.

Ignore button is a godsend.

Maybe if the ignore button extended to voting franchise, Clinton would be president and the looming Brexit a memory.

You'll never understand people if you ignore them, as the world is slowly finding out.

WinnyThePoo · 27-01-2017 02:56PM

orubiru wrote: »

Not at all. It's interesting.

(Hm, OK, maybe I am a bit triggered :P)

I just took out what was relevent to me in your post.

If you have a problem with the conspiracy theorists on this thread. Its yours not mine.

WinnyThePoo · 27-01-2017 02:59PM

Satriale wrote: »

Maybe if the ignore button extended to voting franchise, Clinton would be president and the looming Brexit a memory.

You'll never understand people if you ignore them, as the world is slowly finding out.

Why would i entertain someone hanking on about Obama not being born in America or pizzagate. There's more. They aren't Trump supporters . They are just lunatics.

orubiru · 27-01-2017 03:04PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

She may have been the catalyst for getting the march together but you can't seriously believe that all those people in Washington, New York, London and many other places were marching because of their agreement with Sharia Law.

I think the problems is stemming from the fact that many Trump supporters are just that, they support Trump. His actually policies are not important as much as he is, they will agree with whatever he says simply because he is Trump.

Most sane people don't blindly follow like that. Like others have said, you march for a cause, it is highly likely that many others in the march will have very different views to you on other things. The water protests for example. Do you think everyone agreed with each other on abortion rights, or religious education, or immigration, or the EU?

I think the problem would lie with how people view the marches from the outside though rather than those who actually attend.

You have to remember that 62 million people voted for Trump and 65 million people voted for Hillary. That is a huge number.

So you have 3 to 5 million maybe attending these marches and most of them will already be Anti-Trump and Anti_Republican.

How many people will watch the marches or hear about them or go on to do a little bit of research?

That's why it's a MASSIVE own goal to have an absolute clown like Madonna talk about blowing up the White House or to allow people like Donna Hylton to make a speech at the march.

Eventually people will look back on it and look into what it was all about.

I guess the question is if the march is really for the people in attendance or if it is for the rest of the world looking on?

So someone might post on Twitter saying "I wish Trump would get assassinated" and get 100 pats on the back from like minded people but if that message reaches 1,000 people who think "wow, that's just SO wrong, i can't support this" then ultimately it's a loss.

Trump is doing the same thing, I would say. Talking trash and scoring massive own goals over and over. Maybe you can't actually fight fire with fire. Maybe that just causes a bigger fire.

Satriale · 27-01-2017 03:06PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Why would i entertain some hanking on about Obama not being born in America or pizzagate. There's more. They aren't Trump supporters . They are just lunatics.

That'd be great if lunatics didnt have a vote. I'll stick to hearing everyone out.

WinnyThePoo · 27-01-2017 03:09PM

Satriale wrote: »

That'd be great if lunatics didnt have a vote. I'll stick to hearing everyone out.

Hey thats fine. No hassle. I'm just not interested in reading about the rothchilds are up to or what Cult party thing Podesto was at.

Grayson · 27-01-2017 03:14PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

A little bit embarrassing to be involved in a march lead by a person who believes in Sharia Law and thinks women not being allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia is not a big deal.

well according to a lot of Trump voters all the women were paid to march by George Soros.

Trump voters also have an explanation for why so many women turned out last
weekend- 38% think the marchers were paid to do so by George Soros, to 33%
who say they don't think that was the case, and 29% who aren't sure.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_12617.pdf

That poll provides some interesting insights.

-We find that with Trump in office now, the Affordable Care Act is reaching
record levels of popularity with 45% of voters supporting it to 41% who are
opposed. Only 30% of voters think the best plan is to repeal the act and start
over, while 61% would prefer Congress to keep the Affordable Care Act and fix
parts that aren't working.

The lying about crowd size has already taken a toll on Kellyanne Conway and
Sean Spicer's credibility with the public. Conway has a 32% favorability rating,
with 43% of voters viewing her negatively. By contrast when we polled on her a
month ago she actually had a positive rating at 34/32, so she's had a 13 point net
decline in the wake of 'alternative facts.' Spicer, who we polled for the first time,
is seen favorably by 24% of voters and negatively by 37%

In addition to losing out to all of his predecessors, Trump is also losing most of
the fights he's picked recently. Voters say 58/21 that they think the intelligence
agencies have more credibility than Trump, 50/40 that they think CNN has more
credibility than Trump, and 46/41 that they have a higher opinion of the Today
Show than Trump

Voters are so dim on Trump that they think, in the first week of his
administration, that he will prove to be a worse President than everyone who's
held the office since Richard Nixon.

orubiru · 27-01-2017 03:20PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Why would i entertain someone hanking on about Obama not being born in America or pizzagate. There's more. They aren't Trump supporters . They are just lunatics.

Yes but the lunacy is popular. It becomes so popular that simply ignoring it becomes a bad decision.

Then we are stuck in a situation where telling lies or twisting the truth or just being disingenuous when dealing with the lunacy is a REALLY bad decision.

I think that mistakes were made with Trump. Instead of treating him like the awful candidate he obviously was people started to tell little half truths or make stupid comparisons to Hitler.

62 million votes is a lot.

Grayson · 27-01-2017 03:26PM

orubiru wrote: »

What's your response to Alternative Facts? Real Facts?

Nah, it's "hurr durr... ignore button".

Is there a sarcastic slow clap emoji?

(Hm, OK, maybe I am a bit triggered :P)

It's an interesting argument. When someone spouts nonsense do you try to engage them rationally, do you shout at them or do you just ignore it? None of them are perfect. They all have benefits and weaknesses. If you try to argue with someone by offering the truth they'l just say that you're blinded by the mainstream media. If you shout at them that they're just wrong then you're accused of being just as bad as them. And if you ignore them then you're letting them continue to spread lies.

If we take something like pizzagate. I mention pizzagate because it is the most obvious bit of fake news. A paedophile ring in the basement of a pizza shop that doesn't have a basement. The people who believe in this believe it with a religious type of fervour. Even when it comes to people who believe fake news, these people are at the far end of the spectrum. It's next to impossible to talk rationally with those people. They just won't believe. And the human brain is designed to reject information that doesn't fit into an existing belief. Trying to show them the truth is incredibly hard.

The best we can hope for is to make sure that more people don't fall into the mental sinkhole that these guys are in. Present real news with real facts is the best way to deal with it. And laughter. When you see someone who believes in a flat earth, or creationism or pizzagate, counter it but don't take them seriously.

WinnyThePoo · 27-01-2017 03:27PM

orubiru wrote: »

Yes but the lunacy is popular. It becomes so popular that simply ignoring it becomes a bad decision.

Then we are stuck in a situation where telling lies or twisting the truth or just being disingenuous when dealing with the lunacy is a REALLY bad decision.

I think that mistakes were made with Trump. Instead of treating him like the awful candidate he obviously was people started to tell little half truths or make stupid comparisons to Hitler.

62 million votes is a lot.

I have absolutely know Idea what you are one about in conjunction with me.

People who bring up the Obama birth conspiracy should be laughed or ignored.

osarusan · 27-01-2017 03:38PM

Grayson wrote: »

It's an interesting argument. When someone spouts nonsense do you try to engage them rationally, do you shout at them or do you just ignore it? None of them are perfect. They all have benefits and weaknesses. If you try to argue with someone by offering the truth they'l just say that you're blinded by the mainstream media. If you shout at them that they're just wrong then you're accused of being just as bad as them. And if you ignore them then you're letting them continue to spread lies.

One weakness in the 'rational engagement' idea the assumption that everybody is open to rational argument and will have their mind changed by convincing arguments.

The Obama Birther conspiracy is a good example - the people going on about how he was really born in Kenya - they either don't care if that is true or not, or else believe it to be true based on no evidence and in the face of pretty convincing evidence - so I'm not sure how rational argument fits in there.

Similarly, and a better but less relevant example, is the mindset of young earth creationists. Are they really rational people whose minds simply haven't been convinced yet? Do they believe what they believe because the argument in favour of evolution isn't compelling enough, or accessible enough?

orubiru · 27-01-2017 03:57PM

Grayson wrote: »

It's an interesting argument. When someone spouts nonsense do you try to engage them rationally, do you shout at them or do you just ignore it? None of them are perfect. They all have benefits and weaknesses. If you try to argue with someone by offering the truth they'l just say that you're blinded by the mainstream media. If you shout at them that they're just wrong then you're accused of being just as bad as them. And if you ignore them then you're letting them continue to spread lies.

If we take something like pizzagate. I mention pizzagate because it is the most obvious bit of fake news. A paedophile ring in the basement of a pizza shop that doesn't have a basement. The people who believe in this believe it with a religious type of fervour. Even when it comes to people who believe fake news, these people are at the far end of the spectrum. It's next to impossible to talk rationally with those people. They just won't believe. And the human brain is designed to reject information that doesn't fit into an existing belief. Trying to show them the truth is incredibly hard.

The best we can hope for is to make sure that more people don't fall into the mental sinkhole that these guys are in. Present real news with real facts is the best way to deal with it. And laughter. When you see someone who believes in a flat earth, or creationism or pizzagate, counter it but don't take them seriously.

I think in a lot of ways you will never, ever, convince the hardcore believers. Though maybe in time they will come around on their own.

What is probably most important is the majority of people who are just looking on and saying nothing and forming their opinion.

So if or when something like Pizzagate goes mainstream you hit the believers with rational and measured argument, for example the pizza shop doesn't have a damn basement. It may not convince the person you are arguing with BUT what about the person watching the argument?

So you are arguing with an irrational person in front of 1,000 other people. You might not convince them and they might not convince you but the 1,000 other people are making up their mind.

I suppose in that way you could win the battle, with the individual argument that you are having, but ultimately lose the war.

If the silent audience can see that you've employed questionable tactics or that on reflection you've been unreasonable or dishonest then there's a good chance you won't be able to win them over in the future.

This is an especially bad tactic when you are objectively in the right.

orubiru · 27-01-2017 04:12PM

osarusan wrote: »

Similarly, and a better but less relevant example, is the mindset of young earth creationists. Are they really rational people whose minds simply haven't been convinced yet? Do they believe what they believe because the argument in favour of evolution isn't compelling enough, or accessible enough?

I have had many an argument and debate with these types.

My approach was always the same. You are not trying to convince them. You are trying to convince others or, if the argument is just one on one, you are refining your own ability to argue.

So if you are arguing on Facebook with a Creationist friend then you are not concerned with "winning" you are concerned with making sure that others are absorbing and understanding your point. You are in the right, creationism is nonsense. All you have to do is get your point out there.

People will rarely accept defeat because there is nothing worse than being Wrong On The Internet so they will double down at the cost of their own credibility. Let them.

Call Me Jimmy · 27-01-2017 04:13PM

Sometimes I wonder, is it possible that the economy improves under Trump? It seems that his economic policies are identified as being 100% wrong, isolationist etc. Is it possible that say the tariffs (or threat of tariffs) (along with tax changes) actually has the effect he's aiming for. i.e. businesses stay in the united states? Has a country with the kind of power america has tried something like that recently?

I am completely ignorant of economics, but are we saying its highly unlikely that things like that will improve the economy?

Was that dow going over 20,000 a non-story? was it basically obama who got it up to just under 20,000 and it got a tiny bump with trump? I know i sound like an idiot but i am

Igotadose · 27-01-2017 04:15PM

Good analysis of the inauguration. Well, no, actually lame humor. Some might find it amusing:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/01/24/the-true-correct-story-of-what-happened-at-donald-trumps-inauguration/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_1_na&utm_term=.298ca0f80bcd

Quote: "Nothing that has ever happened or will ever happen was as great as Donald Trump’s inauguration."

And it goes on from there.

RobertKK · 27-01-2017 04:21PM

Trump speaking to Hannity - Hannity made a criticism of Obama, Trump stepped in and said Obama was very nice to him and wrote him a very nice letter.
It was when they were speaking about Obamacare, Trump said Obama supports him if he can find something better than Obamacare for the public. Trump said later this years that premiums are going to rise substantially again and the whole healthcare costs will be a huge public issue.
Trump says he could do nothing with Obamacare and allow the disaster to happen, but that wouldn't be right for the public.

TPP to be replaced with bilateral deals.

In the past he says the people wore uniforms, he says the US are now fighting people who don't wear uniforms, that these people are 'sneaky rats' who are 'sick and demented'.

Trump gave a conflicted answer on waterboarding, he said it is 'one step below torture' in the past, but got reclassified as torture, but he believes it works, he then says General Mattis is against it and he is with him 100% of the way on not using it, but it is Trump's own personal opinion it works as he has been told it does.
Sean Hannity then backed up Trump that it works citing Sheikh Khalid Mohammad which led tot he courier which led to Bin Laden. Hannity claims only three people were waterboarded.
Trump then says we have people who knocked down the twin towers and then Hannity says 'we both lost friends that day', Trump continues with the shooting in the night club and it happening all over the world, then asks questionly 'then we are not allowed to waterboard'?
Then to add more conflict to what Trump says he goes onto say 'I am not into it, but I have been told it works'.

Trump is looking to hold back the $221 million that Obama signed off for the Palestinians in an executive order before leaving office.

Hannity then asks about Saudi Arabia being a duplicitous nation, Trump says he doesn't want to talk about that and doesn't want to put himself into a position. Yet candidate Trump clearly accused Saudi Arabia of what most accept - they were the main characters behind 9/11 and a lot of terrorism in the world.
Trump says he hopes he gets along with everyone but it is possible he won't. He says he doesn't like how certain countries are spending a lot of money in radicalising people, and he then emphasises how he doesn't like that.

Trump is looking to pardon a soldier who got a year in jail for taking 6 photos inside a submarine for personal use. Trump says it is very unfair, the person took a picture of his desk in an old submarine, if China or Russia wanted information on that submarine they already had it for years.

Trump said Madonna is disgusting for saying she wanted to blow up the white house. It was disgraceful to the country.

4,000 people murdered in Chicago during the 8 year term of Obama, Trump says it is worse than some places one reads about in the middle east. There is no reason for it.

Trump is upset over NBC and how his 10 year old son Barron was targeted. He says it has not been easy for him.

Hannity asked about the nuclear codes, Trump says he can't say much as it is very serious stuff, but when they show you the kind of destruction that is explained to you, you realise that getting along with people is very important.

Trump was upset that it was reported he had the bust of Martin Luther King removed. He said it was a racist charge, and when he heard it was removed he asked the White House staff who removed the bust of MLK, they said it was never removed. So Trump then proceeds to attack the media for the lies and big headlines, and for the very small apology for the lies.

Finishes up talking about Obama, Trump says what amazed him was how vicious he was toward Obama, how vicious Obama was towards him, and now they get along very well together. Trump says he likes Obama, and Obama likes him or he thinks he does, and says to Hannity that he will have to ask him. Obama worote him a 'beautiful letter' with plenty to think about.

In fairness, it was an interesting interview.

osarusan · 27-01-2017 04:26PM

orubiru wrote: »

So if you are arguing on Facebook with a Creationist friend then you are not concerned with "winning" you are concerned with making sure that others are absorbing and understanding your point. You are in the right, creationism is nonsense. All you have to do is get your point out there.

What others?

In cases like these, the 'point' is already 'out there'. Anybody who hasn't yet absorbed and understood that point has already turned their back on rational engagement.

Similarly, anybody who isn't yet convinced as to where Obama was born has turned their back on rational engagement.

I take your point in general, but in many cases, I would speculate there is a higher incidence of willful ignorance than I'm guessing you do.

orubiru · 27-01-2017 04:29PM

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Sometimes I wonder, is it possible that the economy improves under Trump? It seems that his economic policies are identified as being 100% wrong, isolationist etc. Is it possible that say the tariffs (or threat of tariffs) (along with tax changes) actually has the effect he's aiming for. i.e. businesses stay in the united states? Has a country with the kind of power america has tried something like that recently?

I am completely ignorant of economics, but are we saying its highly unlikely that things like that will improve the economy?

Was that dow going over 20,000 a non-story? was it basically obama who got it up to just under 20,000 and it got a tiny bump with trump? I know i sound like an idiot but i am

It's possible. We'd have to wait and see though.

Realistically the President of the US is going to make mistakes regardless of who holds the position.

There is absolutely NO WAY that Donald Trump is coming out of this after 4 years (or maybe 8?) with anyone but hardcore supporters saying "yeah, he was a good president".

It'll be somewhere between "complete disaster" and "not as bad as we thought it would be".

Kind of like if a 5 star restaurant employed an unqualified guy as head chef because he once ran a successful McDonald's franchise back in the day.

Yeah, he MIGHT do a good job but the outlook is not so good.

Who knows though? Maybe the US economy is so complicated that it essentially comes down to good or bad luck? I couldn't say.

I doubt we'll understand the long term impact of President Trump until we've seen 2 or 3 more election cycles, and presidents, come and go.

Leroy42 · 27-01-2017 04:33PM

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Sometimes I wonder, is it possible that the economy improves under Trump? It seems that his economic policies are identified as being 100% wrong, isolationist etc. Is it possible that say the tariffs (or threat of tariffs) (along with tax changes) actually has the effect he's aiming for. i.e. businesses stay in the united states? Has a country with the kind of power america has tried something like that recently?

I am completely ignorant of economics, but are we saying its highly unlikely that things like that will improve the economy?

Was that dow going over 20,000 a non-story? was it basically obama who got it up to just under 20,000 and it got a tiny bump with trump? I know i sound like an idiot but i am

IMO, he will actually be effective. He will create jobs, the economy will grow. There is no doubt that he has business skills, and US is in a very strong power position to be able to tell others what to do, much like his business empire.

In the short term.

The problem comes from the difference in business and running a country. In business, a well run one, everything is heading towards the same goal, profit. Countries do not work like that.

He will invest in getting coal and steel back, but that will only put US further behind in the new technologies. Science and new tech has lead the growth of America and it appears that Trump wants to go backwards. Inevitably, there will come along someone else to take that mantel.

So you move the jobs from Mexico to Michigan. Who is going to pay the difference in wage rates? The end consumer. Now, of course you save on state benefits but does it equate?

There is the whole society thing.

Then there is the problem with what type of jobs will be created, what type of economy will be left when his ideas run their course. What will the impact of the US implementing America First policy be? Will it lead to American losing its place in the thought so others? McDonalds, Nike, US films, TV shows etc. American exports vast amounts across the world, a large part based on the liking of american culture.

If countries believe that the US is moving away will they look to cement relationships with others. IMO, EU will be strenghtened by this as people begin to see that basically it is no longer the West v's the rest but Russia v States, v China v rest. To have any hope of a fair trade countries will need to group together. I think the UK is about to walk right into that.

TL/DR - IMO it will work in the short term and over 5/10 years America will look back and wonder how it all went wrong.

PopePalpatine · 27-01-2017 05:10PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

TL/DR - IMO it will work in the short term and over 5/10 years America will look back and wonder how it all went wrong.

That's all that matters to Trump. If he stops the rot in the rust belt during his term, he's a lock for 2020.

After all, It's The Economy, Stupid™.

Manic Moran · 27-01-2017 05:13PM

Jan 26th - Doubles down on torture working. Moderately entertainingly, indications are that Trump's people are using a private server and Trump's still tweeting from an account with a gmail backup and an unsecured Android. World waits cynically for announcement that this is perfectly legal and okay. Announces funding cuts to Sanctuary Cities (although fortunately can't hit them for that much). At this stage, something like fourteen government bodies, mostly to do with the environment, have gone rogue in communications.

This quote is definitely misleading, except for the torture bit which is fairly much universally lambasted, and the communications bit, which will be interesting to see how it comes out.

The private server is a legal requirement. Trump's people are prohibited by law from conducting party business on the White House servers, one is not allowed to co-mingle State business with political business. Where Clinton went wrong, and hence all the hassle, was that she used a private server for State business. Folks are not making that distinction, and are in effect criticizing Trump for his people doing exactly what the law and ethics require. (At least, on this particular subject)

With regards to sanctuary cities, Trump has merely turned up the dial started under the Obama administration. AG Holder a few years ago started putting requirements in the DoJ's deals with cities, and AG Lynch outright threatened sanctuary cities with cutting federal funding for non-compliance with immigration authorities last year. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/7/sanctuary-city-police-getting-funding-yanks-by-fed/ The difference here is that Trump is actually carrying out the threat.

"Can't hit them for much" probably requires that you check in on local media. I live in the San Francisco area. A city with an annual budget of just under $10bn, and which is barely making ends meet financially. The Feds provide a little over $1bn of that budget, no small change, and the city leadership is trying to calm (justifiable) fears of cuts to services and capabilities which would result from that cut in cash flow. They have started trying to juggle their budget, and warned of some service cuts. SF has said that they are hopeful that the revenue loss will be compensated for by the State. As far as I know, the State has not indicated if it will do so or not.

The mayor of Miami Dade has indicated this morning that he will start compliance with ICE. Although his objection to compliance was on procedural, not moral grounds (To do with cost repayments), he openly stated that they couldn't afford the loss of $355m out of the $7bn budget.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article128984759.html

The funding cuts do have teeth.

ScumLord · 27-01-2017 05:16PM

orubiru wrote: »

There is absolutely NO WAY that Donald Trump is coming out of this after 4 years (or maybe 8?) with anyone but hardcore supporters saying "yeah, he was a good president".

Trump promised armed poor people he'd get them jobs. If he doesn't make good on that promise they will lose their minds.

Jelle1880 · 27-01-2017 05:18PM

Are the numbers branded about by some websites (like 25bn dollars) correct for the cost of his wall ?

If so, that's mental.

MightyMandarin · 27-01-2017 05:32PM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Are the numbers branded about by some websites (like 25bn dollars) correct for the cost of his wall ?

If so, that's mental.

The ironic thing is that it'll do **** all to stop illegal immigration. The vast majority of illegals come over on legal visas and never leave (some of whom are Irish btw).

People who voted for Trump thinking the wall is going 'to keep us safe from those damn mexicans' haven't a clue about how illegal immigration works. The coyotes who are paid to bring people across illegally will find a way around the wall (or overblown fence), most likely through the genius of using a rope or digging a tunnel.

Manic Moran · 27-01-2017 05:32PM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Are the numbers branded about by some websites (like 25bn dollars) correct for the cost of his wall ?

If so, that's mental.

Cost estimates vary from $12bn (unlikely) to $50bn (more likely).

That said, in the grand scheme of things, that's not actually a ridiculous amount of money in the US budget. Further, if the Sanctuary Cities stand on principle, and if the Feds carry out the grant cuts, that's a few $bn a year that the Feds can divert to wall-building. The US currently spends over $1bn a year mucking about in Syria (that we know about). Over the course of four years, that sort of thing would pretty handily cover the majority of the cost.

ScumLord · 27-01-2017 05:35PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

The ironic thing is that it'll do **** all to stop illegal immigration. The vast majority of illegals come over on legal visas and never leave (some of whom are Irish btw).

People who voted for Trump thinking the wall is going 'to keep us safe from those damn mexicans' haven't a clue about how illegal immigration works. The coyotes who are paid to bring people across illegally will find a way around the wall (or overblown fence), most likely through the genius of using a rope or digging a tunnel.

I think the majority of illegal immigrants enter the country the same way as everybody else. On a plane.

I heard someone else say it will do very little to stop people but will put a stop to drugs. But if people can get through they can bring drugs with them. I don't know how many drug runners are actually running across borders in remote areas? I'd say more are just sending mules through airports.

The wall is a symbol, it will serve no actual purpose.

listermint · 27-01-2017 05:37PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Cost estimates vary from $12bn (unlikely) to $50bn (more likely).

That said, in the grand scheme of things, that's not actually a ridiculous amount of money in the US budget. Further, if the Sanctuary Cities stand on principle, and if the Feds carry out the grant cuts, that's a few $bn a year that the Feds can divert to wall-building. The US currently spends over $1bn a year mucking about in Syria (that we know about). Over the course of four years, that sort of thing would pretty handily cover the majority of the cost.

That will be challenged as unconstitutional and they will win.

Bluster

Hail To The Chief (Read Mod Warning In OP)

Comments