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

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2016, 06:19 PM)Au165 Wrote: 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.

Guess the rest of us will find out; seems you already know. I have no idea what business would "allow" congress to do.

[Au165]

(03-11-2016, 06:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Guess the rest of us will find out; seems you already know. I have no idea what business would "allow" congress to do.

Anyone with any logical reasoning can tell you a wall that is "paid for" by another country totaling 8$ Billion plus will never be made. It is like saying elect me, and I'll make college free for everyone. Sounds great in principal, but there are serious issues involved with this that make it a horrible idea and practically impossible. What they both have in common is they are ideas that an easily persuaded electoral base can latch on to because it's easier to understand than many of the other issues the country and the president deal with on a day to day basis.

[GMDino]

(03-11-2016, 06:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

Four pages of Drumpf defense says otherwise...no matter what was said previously.

However your snarky (did I use the right word?) comment concerning Fred is duly noted.  At least it wasn't a snarky meme.  

[GMDino]

(03-11-2016, 06:29 PM)Au165 Wrote: Anyone with any logical reasoning can tell you a wall that is "paid for" by another country totaling 8$ Billion plus will never be made. It is like saying elect me, and I'll make college free for everyone. Sounds great in principal, but there are serious issues involved with this that make it a horrible idea and practically impossible. What they both have in common is they are ideas that an easily persuaded electoral base can latch on to because it's easier to understand than many of the other issues the country and the president deal with on a day to day basis.

I'd say that sane people realize 98% of all campaign "promises" won't happen anymore unless one party can get things through.

But the "wall" isn't even really a campaign promise, is it?  More like a talking point now.

[Au165]

(03-11-2016, 06:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'd say that sane people realize 98% of all campaign "promises" won't happen anymore unless one party can get things through.

But the "wall" isn't even really a campaign promise, is it?  More like a talking point now.

Disagree, I think the masses believe it. I would venture to say a majority of the voters in this country actually believe some of the outlandish promises made during campaigns. I think some believe they will be done, but not as clean as they say it will be, but many think it is as easy as "Free college" or a "Free Wall".

[Mike M (the other one)]

(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?

(03-11-2016, 05:39 PM)Au165 Wrote: 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.

There is more than one way to get them to pay for it.

First, we can start off by offering a path to USC to the illegals here.

There is approximately 11.1 million Illegals here the in the US. Offer then a chance to become USC's at $5k per person. Even if only half apply and pay, that's $27.5 billion. (How much was the wall estimated at again? $2.4B?) Say we get a 90% rate over 3 years, that's $50B in all.

Now Let's talk about that $120 Billion that individuals send abroad annually .
tax it at a rate of 15%. $18 Billion annually right there.

Want to have real fun?
Let's go after companies that transfer USD to foreign accounts. There is approximately $2.1T that companies are hiding from the US.
At 35% that's $735 billion.

But I'm not done with these companies, they skirted the laws and will be penalized an extra 15% for it.
I just took half of that $2.1T, I have $1.05T now.

Now they won't try to hide it because if they do we will penalize them again. So we gain some annual tax money from it.

That should be a good way to start revamping the US infrastructure and pay for a wall, and revamp many US public Schools, I would use it to make them more energy efficient via solar/wind energy (this is the number 2 expense for all schools, Salaries is number 1).

As I've always said, there is always a way to get the money if you want it. You just have to be creative.

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2016, 06:32 PM)GMDino Wrote: Four pages of Drumpf defense says otherwise...no matter what was said previously.

However your snarky (did I use the right word?) comment concerning Fred is duly noted.  At least it wasn't a snarky meme.  

No support; just simply enjoying how much folks try to turn a simple "Mexico doesn't want to go to war with us" into a "Trump threatens to Kill Mexico" spin. I supposeI do support Trump over anyone that tries that spin. 

As to the comment it was simply in reverence to the intellectual acumen that Fred confessed to having in post 21. He knows more than most on here, just check post 31 for confirmation. WTS, I'm not sure it compares to making snarky comments/memes about 5 people getting killed, but we are not supposed to bring up things from other threads.  

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2016, 07:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: There is more than one way to get them to pay for it.

First, we can start off by offering a path to USC to the illegals here.

There is approximately 11.1 million Illegals here the in the US. Offer then a chance to become USC's at $5k per person. Even if only half apply and pay, that's $27.5 billion. (How much was the wall estimated at again? $2.4B?) Say we get a 90% rate over 3 years, that's $50B in all.

Now Let's talk about that $120 Billion that individuals send abroad annually .
tax it at a rate of 15%. $18 Billion annually right there.

Want to have real fun?
Let's go after companies that transfer USD to foreign accounts. There is approximately $2.1T that companies are hiding from the US.
At 35% that's $735 billion.

But I'm not done with these companies, they skirted the laws and will be penalized an extra 15% for it.
I just took half of that $2.1T, I have $1.05T now.

Now they won't try to hide it because if they do we will penalize them again. So we gain some annual tax money from it.

That should be a good way to start revamping the US infrastructure and pay for a wall, and revamp many US public Schools, I would use it to make them more energy efficient via solar/wind energy (this is the number 2 expense for all schools, Salaries is number 1).

As I've always said, there is always a way to get the money if you want it. You just have to be creative.

Of course we can make Mexico "pay" for it and as I said there are folks smarter than me that can show it on paper. Do I think an actual brick and mortar wall will happen?  Nope. I think a reform of some sort will be agreed upon if the GOP takes the White House and trump will point to his beautiful virtual wall that Mexico paid for. 

[Benton]

(03-11-2016, 07:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: There is more than one way to get them to pay for it.

First, we can start off by offering a path to USC to the illegals here.

There is approximately 11.1 million Illegals here the in the US. Offer then a chance to become USC's at $5k per person. Even if only half apply and pay, that's $27.5 billion. (How much was the wall estimated at again? $2.4B?) Say we get a 90% rate over 3 years, that's $50B in all.

Now Let's talk about that $120 Billion that individuals send abroad annually .
tax it at a rate of 15%. $18 Billion annually right there.

Want to have real fun?
Let's go after companies that transfer USD to foreign accounts. There is approximately $2.1T that companies are hiding from the US.
At 35% that's $735 billion.

But I'm not done with these companies, they skirted the laws and will be penalized an extra 15% for it.
I just took half of that $2.1T, I have $1.05T now.

Now they won't try to hide it because if they do we will penalize them again. So we gain some annual tax money from it.

That should be a good way to start revamping the US infrastructure and pay for a wall, and revamp many US public Schools, I would use it to make them more energy efficient via solar/wind energy (this is the number 2 expense for all schools, Salaries is number 1).

As I've always said, there is always a way to get the money if you want it. You just have to be creative.

it's already close to a grand to become a citizen, so I'm guessing the $5k is on top.

which, honestly, I'm not a fan of selling citizenship.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-11-2016, 07:52 PM)Benton Wrote: it's already close to a grand to become a citizen, so I'm guessing the $5k is on top.

which, honestly, I'm not a fan of selling citizenship.

1k? Apparently you haven't gone thru the process. My wife and i paid a minimum of 2300 and had to wait amost 5 total years. Then n-400 costs 1,040 by itself. Then there is the visa that you use, and i29f and finally the usc application. 

Doubling the price seems fair to me since they wont have as long to wait.

Maybe we should charge 1k for every year they were here illegally? 

Your last comment blows my freaking mind. 
First, you complain about people being deported.
Now you don't want to give them a path to legal citizenship......
Make up your mind.

You know as well as I do that any path to USC staus is going to involve money. Take their money, use it to improve the US and to pay for deporting people we don't want here. Just get it over with.

[GMDino]

(03-11-2016, 07:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No support; just simply enjoying how much folks try to turn a simple "Mexico doesn't want to go to war with us" into a "Trump threatens to Kill Mexico" spin. I supposeI do support Trump over anyone that tries that spin. 

As to the comment it was simply in reverence to the intellectual acumen that Fred confessed to having in post 21. He knows more than most on here, just check post 31 for confirmation. WTS, I'm not sure it compares to making snarky comments/memes about 5 people getting killed, but we are not supposed to bring up things from other threads.  

I keep forgetting that we have to go by the person's exact words.

Quote:Bob Woodward asked Trump, “Would you be willing to go to war to make sure we get the money to pay for this wall?”



“Trust me, Bob, when I rejuvenate our military, Mexico’s not going to be playing with us with war, that I can tell you. Mexico isn't playing with us with war,” Trump responded Wednesday.

He thinks Mexico would rather pay then go to war...which means he's willing to go to war if they don't pay.

Period.

(03-11-2016, 07:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course we can make Mexico "pay" for it and as I said there are folks smarter than me that can show it on paper. Do I think an actual brick and mortar wall will happen?  Nope. I think a reform of some sort will be agreed upon if the GOP takes the White House and trump will point to his beautiful virtual wall that Mexico paid for. 

*snark*

You're funny.

Anyway if you don't believe the wall will be built...then why spend all day defending how Drumpf will make Mexico pay for it?

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2016, 09:50 PM)GMDino Wrote:

I keep forgetting that we have to go by the person's exact words.



He thinks Mexico would rather pay then go to war...which means he's willing to go to war if they don't pay.

Period.





*snark*

You're funny.

Anyway if you don't believe the wall will be built...then why spend all day defending how Drumpf will make Mexico pay for it?

My main point of contention was those that took Trumps' non-committal words as an act of war.

Secondly, I don't think I've said Trump will make Mexico pay; I've simply given an alternative to those that say he "cannot" make them pay. Sorta like we don't have to concern ourselves with exact words when declaring war, but we do have to concern ourselves with exact words when saying Mexico will pay 

Finally the Brown-Shirts are out. I hope you and others are proud:

http://fox17online.com/2016/03/11/trump-rally-cancelled-in-chicago-due-to-safety-concerns/

[GMDino]

(03-11-2016, 10:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My main point of contention was those that took Trumps' non-committal words as an act of war.

Secondly, I don't think I've said Trump will make Mexico pay; I've simply given an alternative to those that say he "cannot" make them pay. Sorta like we don't have to concern ourselves with exact words when declaring war, but we do have to concern ourselves with exact words when saying Mexico will pay 

Finally the Brown-Shirts are out. I hope you and others are proud:

http://fox17online.com/2016/03/11/trump-rally-cancelled-in-chicago-due-to-safety-concerns/

Not an "act of war" but the raving of an idiot who thinks war is a viable option to get another country to pay for his vanity project.


So you're not saying it will happen just pointing out all the ways it could/would and being snarky to anyone who disagrees.  

Lastly, organized protest are "brown shirts"?  I thought we should avoid Hitler / Nazi references without a little more research?

(03-11-2016, 10:18 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 2) Those comparing Trump to Hitler may want to do a little more research on the Brown Shirts and their Political agenda

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2016, 10:28 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not an "act of war" but the raving of an idiot who thinks war is a viable option to get another country to pay for his vanity project.


So you're not saying it will happen just pointing out all the ways it could/would and being snarky to anyone who disagrees.  

Lastly, organized protest are "brown shirts"?  I thought we should avoid Hitler / Nazi references without a little more research?

Don't recall being "snarky" to anyone during the actual discussion of how Mexico could pay for the wall. Although I have been told my points lack common sense, are those of stupid people, and without foundation.

Yes, I see you realized why i used the Brown-Shirts reference. Any thoughts on the violence that is breaking out at a political nominee's rally? 

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2016, 10:28 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not an "act of war" but the raving of an idiot who thinks war is a viable option to get another country to pay for his vanity project.


So you're not saying it will happen just pointing out all the ways it could/would and being snarky to anyone who disagrees.  

Lastly, organized protest are "brown shirts"?  I thought we should avoid Hitler / Nazi references without a little more research?

Don't recall being "snarky" to anyone during the actual discussion of how Mexico could pay for the wall. Although I have been told my points lack common sense, are those of stupid people, and without foundation.

Yes, I see you realized why i used the Brown-Shirts reference. Any thoughts on the violence that is breaking out at a political nominee's rally? 

The Sturmabteilung (SA; German pronunciation: [ˈʃtʊɐ̯mʔapˌtaɪlʊŋ] ( listen); literally "Storm Detachment") functioned as the original paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party.

It played a significant role in Adolf Hitler's rise to power in the 1920s and 1930s. Their primary purposes were providing protection for Nazi rallies and assemblies, disrupting the meetings of opposing parties, fighting against the paramilitary units of the opposing parties, especially the Red Front Fighters League of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), and intimidating Slavic and Romani citizens, unionists, and Jews – for instance, during the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses.

[GMDino]

(03-11-2016, 10:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Don't recall being "snarky" to anyone during the actual discussion of how Mexico could pay for the wall. Although I have been told my points lack common sense, are those of stupid people, and without foundation.

Yes, I see you realized why i used the Brown-Shirts reference. Any thoughts on the violence that is breaking out at a political nominee's rally? 

The Sturmabteilung (SA; German pronunciation: [ˈʃtʊɐ̯mʔapˌtaɪlʊŋ] ( listen); literally "Storm Detachment") functioned as the original paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party.

It played a significant role in Adolf Hitler's rise to power in the 1920s and 1930s. Their primary purposes were providing protection for Nazi rallies and assemblies, disrupting the meetings of opposing parties, fighting against the paramilitary units of the opposing parties, especially the Red Front Fighters League of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), and intimidating Slavic and Romani citizens, unionists, and Jews – for instance, during the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses.

Oh!  So Drumpf's people who beat protesters are NOT brown shirts for "protecting" him at rallies.  But anyone PROTESTING Drumpf is.  

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2016, 10:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: Oh!  So Drumpf's people who beat protesters are NOT brown shirts for "protecting" him at rallies.  But anyone PROTESTING Drumpf is.  

Let me know when anti-Clinton protesters cause a shut down of a Clinton rally. Fortunately Trump (or the 1600 variant Drumpf) had the good sense to cancel the rally rather than incite tensions. 

But keep posting those links comparing Trump to Hitler. It makes you and other like-minded look so accepting. 

[GMDino]

(03-11-2016, 11:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let me know when anti-Clinton protesters cause a shut down of a Clinton rally. Fortunately Trump (or the 1600 variant Drumpf) had the good sense to cancel the rally rather than incite tensions. 

But keep posting those links comparing Trump to Hitler. It makes you and other like-minded look so accepting. 

*snark*

You avoided the comparison you made.

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2016, 11:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: *snark*

You avoided the comparison you made.

Oh, I found what Benton attributed to O'Rielly. It was actually one of his liberal guests when the discussion turned to "Trump is Hitler" and his supporters are Brownshirts:

 http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/03/09/fox-contributor-equates-liberals-on-college-cam/209123

Quote:BERNIE GOLDBERG: If you don't like Donald Trump, fine. I don't like his unpresidential demeanor but, please -- and I mean this -- please don't demean the memory of the millions of people Hitler murdered just for a cheap laugh or -- as you said in the talking points -- to stifle dissent. Don't do that........ Let me make two points. One, on the Brown Shirts matter, if there are any Brown Shirts in this country, it's liberals on college campuses who break up demonstrations and speeches, because they disagree with what's being said. That's what the Brown Shirts did and that's what some crazy liberals on college campuses are doing.

I didn't make the comparison, you did when you posted an article equating Trump to Hitler; that point was merely countered. 


Crazy how this guy called the breaking up of speeches by college students days before this happened. 

[GMDino]

(03-12-2016, 12:03 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, I found what Benton attributed to O'Rielly. It was actually one of his liberal guests when the discussion turned to "Trump is Hitler" and his supporters are Brownshirts:

 http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/03/09/fox-contributor-equates-liberals-on-college-cam/209123




I didn't make the comparison, you did when you posted an article equating Trump to Hitler; that point was merely countered. 


Crazy how this guy called the breaking up of speeches by college students days before this happened. 

No, no...when you decided that the protesters were "brown shirts".

(03-11-2016, 10:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Finally the Brown-Shirts are out. I hope you and others are proud:

http://fox17online.com/2016/03/11/trump-rally-cancelled-in-chicago-due-to-safety-concerns/

And when reminded that you had suggested that we not compare Drumpf to Hitler you doubled down.

(03-11-2016, 10:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Don't recall being "snarky" to anyone during the actual discussion of how Mexico could pay for the wall. Although I have been told my points lack common sense, are those of stupid people, and without foundation.

Yes, I see you realized why i used the Brown-Shirts reference. Any thoughts on the violence that is breaking out at a political nominee's rally? 

The Sturmabteilung (SA; German pronunciation: [ˈʃtʊɐ̯mʔapˌtaɪlʊŋ] ( listen); literally "Storm Detachment") functioned as the original paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party.

It played a significant role in Adolf Hitler's rise to power in the 1920s and 1930s. Their primary purposes were providing protection for Nazi rallies and assemblies, disrupting the meetings of opposing parties, fighting against the paramilitary units of the opposing parties, especially the Red Front Fighters League of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), and intimidating Slavic and Romani citizens, unionists, and Jews – for instance, during the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses.

So I asked about your comparison that somehow protesting is being a "brown shirt" but what Drumpf says and his people do at his "rallies" is off limits when it comes to "brown shirt" comparisons.  (Which, for the record, no one on the board said anyway but rather it was a quote in a story.  Much like the link you provided from BOR's show.)

Sorry if that's hard to follow.  

Have a great night!