Trump asked how he will make Mexico pay for his wall...

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2016, 05:01 PM)Benton Wrote: Well, 'war' and 'street fighting' aren't synonyms for a reason. Using your analogy it's (change to make it what he's actually saying in italics):

Members of Timmy's family keep walking across your yard, causing it harm; yet all the while you are paying their electric bill. You ask them repeatedly not to do it, but they refuse. So you say I'm going to put up a fence in my yard to keep Timmy's family from walking across my yard and being as his family members walking across my yard is the only reason I need this fence; him and his family are going to pay for my fence. Then for some reason someones asks your are you going to fight Timmy if he doesn't pay for the fence and you say: I'm going to kill Timmy.

Just when you thought you've seen it all..

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2016, 05:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: The highlighted means you will fight Timmy if he doesn't pay you...and you think you will win because you are bigger.  That's all.

So long as you don't balk when other's make such assumptions; I suppose you can draw that conclusion even though, he said nothing of the sort. he was asked would you fight and he replied: my opponent doesn't want to fight me. But somehow, someway that became he threatened to beat someone up because he was asked if he would and he didn't say he would.

The conclusions you guys are coming to over this non-commital staement are absolutely hilarious.

Will we go to war with Mexico if they don't take measure to stop illegal immigration? Who knows? I just didn't get an "absolutely" out of that quote that the rest of you did.

[Au165]

Mexico isn't paying for a wall, anyone who actually believes that is nuts. It isn't Mexico's job to lock their citizens in. If we don't want their citizens it is our job to keep them out. I'm sorry, but to actually think you can force another sovereign country to pay for anything to be built outside of their country is pretty crazy.

So can Canada tell us to build a wall to keep out all the kids, hunters and bachelor parties from crossing into their country?

[fredtoast]

(03-11-2016, 05:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So long as you don't balk when other's make such assumptions; I suppose you can draw that conclusion even though, he said nothing of the sort. he was asked would you fight and he replied: my opponent doesn't want to fight me. But somehow, someway that became he threatened to beat someone up because he was asked if he would and he didn't say he would.

The conclusions you guys are coming to over this non-commital staement are absolutely hilarious.

Will we go to war with Mexico if they don't take measure to stop illegal immigration? Who knows? I just didn't get an "absolutely" out of that quote that the rest of you did.

A threat 100% implies a willingness to do something.

When someone makes a threat they are saying they are willing to do exactly what they are threatening to do.

It really takes some remarkable mental gymnastics to try and claim a threat is not a clear statement of willingness to do what is threatened.  Otherwise the threat is meaningless.

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2016, 05:27 PM)Au165 Wrote: Mexico isn't paying for a wall, anyone who actually believes that is nuts. It isn't Mexico's job to lock their citizens in. If we don't want their citizens it is our job to keep them out. I'm sorry, but to actually think you can force another sovereign country to pay for anything to be built outside of their country is pretty crazy.

So can Canada tell us to build a wall to keep out all the kids, hunters and bachelor parties from crossing into their country?

Do you think it is crazy to cut off a country's financial aid if they do not comply with your request?

[Au165]

(03-11-2016, 05:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you think it is crazy to cut off a country's financial aid if they do not comply with your request?

Sure, you can cut it off. As it has been said though, that isn't Mexico paying for it that is the United States Citizens paying for it, and that doesn't sound nearly as catchy as making Mexico pay for it.

As for Aid the only figure I could find was we sent 200Million in 2012, not anywhere close to the Billion you said. 200 Million is pretty small in the grand scheme of running a country.

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2016, 05:32 PM)Au165 Wrote: Sure, you can cut it off. As it has been said though, that isn't Mexico paying for it that is the United States Citizens paying for it, and that doesn't sound nearly as catchy as making Mexico pay for it.

Pay: suffer a loss or other misfortune as a consequence of an action.

You don't always always have to write a check to pay for something.  

[Au165]

(03-11-2016, 05:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Pay: suffer a loss or other misfortune as a consequence of an action.

You don't always always have to write a check to pay for something.  

I get it, but let's call a spade a spade. He is intentionally saying "they will pay for it", because most of his followers would not be happy with the realization of "we will cut off aid, but really you all will pay for it". If it is his plan...which he has never said it is, it is at best misleading an ignorant following.

[fredtoast]

(03-11-2016, 05:32 PM)Au165 Wrote: Sure, you can cut it off. As it has been said though, that isn't Mexico paying for it that is the United States Citizens paying for it, and that doesn't sound nearly as catchy as making Mexico pay for it.

If we cut off aid to Mexico then Russia or China could step in.  then we have a real enemy on our border.

The United States has had a huge benefit in not having an enemy within thousands of miles (except one small island).  Many countries have to spend serious resources to deal with problems with their immediate neighbors.

[Au165]

Here is the next problem, if we cut off funding (419Million a year not a Billion) and the wall costs 8 Billion then how are they paying for it? In 20 years they have paid for it, but then you have to take maintenance into account. Any way you slice it...Mexico isn't paying for this magical wall, if it happens it will be U.S. tax payers.


Edited: Numbers now from most recent 2013 numbers.

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2016, 05:44 PM)Au165 Wrote: Here is the next problem, if we cut off funding (200Million a year not a Billion) and the wall costs 8 Billion then how are they paying for it? In 40 years they have paid for it, but then you have to take maintenance into account. Any way you slice it...Mexico isn't paying for this magical wall, if it happens it will be U.S. tax payers.

I wonder how much us backing out of NAFTA and trade with Mexico would cost them?

Plus the latest aid figures I've seen to mexico over twice the $200 Bill figure. What's wrong with paying American workers a good wage to maintain the wall? Maybe take a little out of the unemployment fund.

[GMDino]

(03-11-2016, 05:32 PM)Au165 Wrote: Sure, you can cut it off. As it has been said though, that isn't Mexico paying for it that is the United States Citizens paying for it, and that doesn't sound nearly as catchy as making Mexico pay for it.

As for Aid the only figure I could find was we sent 200Million in 2012, not anywhere close to the Billion you said. 200 Million is pretty small in the grand scheme of running a country.

(03-11-2016, 05:44 PM)Au165 Wrote: Here is the next problem, if we cut off funding (419Million a year not a Billion) and the wall costs 8 Billion then how are they paying for it? In 20 years they have paid for it, but then you have to take maintenance into account. Any way you slice it...Mexico isn't paying for this magical wall, if it happens it will be U.S. tax payers.


Edited: Numbers now from most recent 2013 numbers.

Uh oh!  Facts!

That doesn't bode well....

[Au165]

(03-11-2016, 05:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I wonder how much us backing out of NAFTA and trade with Mexico would cost them?

Plus the latest aid figures I've seen to mexico over twice the $200 Bill figure. What's wrong with paying American workers a good wage to maintain the wall? Maybe take a little out of the unemployment fund.

It's not one way, our economy would take a very large hit as well. Now what you are doing is paying for a wall and hurting our own economy. The biggest issue is that in the end no wall will keep people out if they really want in. They will find a new way in, maybe not at the same pace, but they will still come in.

The wall really is just a red herring, and it always has been. It is a tangible idea that his followers can get behind, but in the end congress would never fund it and it won't happen even if he is elected. If it did happen, anyone that has ever done government contracting will tell you it will be way late and 2x-3x over budget. It just isn't a practical idea.

[GMDino]

(03-11-2016, 05:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Pay: suffer a loss or other misfortune as a consequence of an action.

You don't always always have to write a check to pay for something.  

Right...you go to war and pay with your land and dead citizens.  

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2016, 05:55 PM)Au165 Wrote: It's not one way, our economy would take a very large hit as well. Now what you are doing is paying for a wall and hurting our own economy. The biggest issue is that in the end no wall will keep people out if they really want in. They will find a new way in, maybe not at the same pace, but they will still come in. The wall is a red herring, and it really always has been. It is a tangible idea that his followers can get behind, but in the end congress would never fund it and it won't happen even if he is elected.

Stopping free trade with Mexico would actually help us financially according to many Macro-Economists (at the absolute worst; it would hurt mexico much more than us).  Mexico has benefited greatly from NAFTA and now export about $1 Billion dollars a day. We had a $54 Billion trade deficient with Mexico in 2013, so using your logic the wall would cost them about 2 month's worth of trade to the US.


I'm sure Dino will appreciate these facts.  

[Au165]

(03-11-2016, 06:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Stopping free trade with Mexico would actually help us financially according to many Macro-Economists.  Mexico has benefited greatly from NAFTA and now export about $1 Billion dollars a day. We had a $54 Billion trade deficient with Mexico in 2013, so using your math the wall would cost them about 2 month's worth of trade to the US.


I'm sure Dino will appreciate these facts.  

I have seen statements that it does, and it doesn't, no one really can be for sure because their are a lot of unknown effects that we can't trully understand fully. No matter what, 54 Billion doesn't just reappear in our economy, it's much more complicated than that.

[GMDino]

(03-11-2016, 06:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Stopping free trade with Mexico would actually help us financially according to many Macro-Economists (at the absolute worst; it would hurt mexico much more than us).  Mexico has benefited greatly from NAFTA and now export about $1 Billion dollars a day. We had a $54 Billion trade deficient with Mexico in 2013, so using your logic the wall would cost them about 2 month's worth of trade to the US.


I'm sure Dino will appreciate these facts.  

I do!


I just wish that a trade deficit ended and resulted in a profit simply by ending one trade agreement.    

I also wish your candidate (Drumpf) had said ANY of the things you have said to defend him rather than what he ACTUALLY said.  

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2016, 06:12 PM)Au165 Wrote: No matter what, 54 Billion doesn't just reappear in our economy, it's much more complicated than that.

Of course it doesn't, but it disappears from Mexico's.

It's economics; no one knows for sure; they just rely on models; but, I doubt Mexico would let $8 Bil stand in the way of not finding out.  

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2016, 06:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: I do!


I just wish that a trade deficit ended and resulted in a profit simply by ending one trade agreement.    

I also wish your candidate (Drumpf) had said ANY of the things you have said to defend him rather than what he ACTUALLY said.  

Where have I ever said I am a trump supporter. Pretty sure I've said just the opposite; however, I deal with reality.

If he is elected there will be people much smarter that me telling him what to say/do. Hell a couple of them might be as smart as Fred.

[Au165]

(03-11-2016, 06:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course it doesn't, but it disappears from Mexico's.

It's economics; no one knows for sure; they just rely on models; but, I doubt Mexico would let $8 Bil stand in the way of not finding out.  

They will because they are a sovereign country not beholden to us. The U.S. companies who produce in Mexico, and very much so enjoy it ,would never allow congress to let this happen.  Once again, this is all a red herring and will never happen.