Trump Is Reality TV, Mueller Is The Wire

[BananaStand]

So, until you go through due process of being adjudicated as insane, you have both the 2nd amendment right and the right to due process. So yes, crazy people still a constitutional 2nd amendment right until someone determines they are insane through due process, at which point they lose their 2nd amendment right. Otherwise you could just call anyone crazy and take away their guns.

Perhaps you don't understand my objection. I'm taking issue with your using of the descriptive label "crazy" to describe someone who has not been adjudicated as such. I realize that there are probably people out there with cracked thinking that the government doesn't know about yet (I think you might be one of them). However, they don't count as "crazy" under the law.

Going back to your original statement, which was in response to Ong's description of Trump's gun policy.....nothing Ong said was unconstitutional or was an example of selective application of the 2nd amendment.

Maybe it would be better to explain that in a manner that you would find more coherent, like 'constitution - first prove crazy, then take guns', and 'Trump - first take guns, then prove crazy'. See the difference?

I do see the difference. If you turned off your auto-argue switch and bothered to read anything I've posted, you'd know this concerns me as well. However, I would be more concerned if...

A) I had Tucker Carlson's job and I was paid to be concerned
B) I thought Trump was actually serious
C) I thought for a second that congress would ever actually do this

[OngBonga]

Maybe it would be better to explain that in a manner that you would find more coherent, like 'constitution - first prove crazy, then take guns', and 'Trump - first take guns, then prove crazy'. See the difference?

Why is Trump's position there a problem? You first identify a reason to suspect crazy, take guns away while due process is served, and then either prove crazy and don't let them have guns back, or prove sane and give guns back with a nice signed letter of apology off the Prez.

I'm surprised you want them to prove insanity first. I can only assume that's your position because it's not Trump's.

[BananaStand]

Why is Trump's position there a problem?

Because it is. If you don't understand why, I can't explain it to you. Just know that it is a YUUUUUUUGE problem.

[OngBonga]

Well ok it's a problem for America, but it's not a problem for me, morally. If I had a gun, and I gave the authorities good enough reason to suspect I might be mentally unstable, then I have no moral objection to my gun being taken off me while I am assessed. I would consider it responsible governance, it's acting in the interests of public safety.

Of course, I'd expect there to be some kind of criteria, something concrete that will stand up in court. I'd expect the authorities to have to obtain a court order for the temporary confsication of my weapon. This is all "due process".

I dunno why you want crazy people to be running around with guns. Everyone who is declared crazy, well there was a time when they had a gun, were being investigated... it's a matter of time before someone goes on a spree during this process and everyone will be "well how fucking stupid were we to let him have the gun while we looked into him" and the law gets changed.

Just suck it up now. Get some guidelines together on what gives the state the right to temporarily confiscate weapons, ie define "ominous shit". If that's a problem, well you guys really do have more problems with guns than I could every have imagined.

[OngBonga]

Do you know what? I can see why it's a problem.

How do you "look into someone"? You can't force someone into a hospital for assessment just because a) they have a gun, and b) someone thinks they *might* be insane.

I mean these fucking dicks who post "ominous shit" on social media, I'm not arguing in their favour, they have given the state good reason to be concerned, but someone goes to the doctor and asks for antidepressants because he's feeling low? Where do we go from there?

Yeah that can be messy.

[BananaStand]

I'm sure Poop can confirm for you that the DSM-V contains enough different diagnoses to declare 70% of the world "mentally ill".

If you're worried about crazy people arming themselves....arm yourself. Problem solved.

[BananaStand]

Here's some good advice for Poopadoop and anyone else who finds themselves caught in the liberal echo chamber that Gutfeld un-creatively describes as "Group 1" in this column.

Rehab for Trump Haters

[MadMojoMonkey]

The issue of gun ownership is cultural more than anything.
In Murica, we believe in personal responsibility and embrace a healthy skepticism that our gov't and/or military will always have our best interests as their primary goal.
Political overthrows are messy, and we are lucky to live in countries which haven't gone through serious periods of lawlessness or self-aggression. Plenty of examples of people living today are not so lucky as we are. Our countries may not be so lucky in the future. It's naive to pretend that vesting your safety in other people is an effective long-term plan for your safety. Your safety ends when those who are supposed to protect you decide to turn against you. Sure, that doesn't look likely in our current political environments, but that doesn't mean that it wont ever be likely.

If a person who doesn't want to kill people owns a gun, they are not threat to me or other people. If a person wants to kill people and doesn't own a gun, they are still a threat to me and other people. The gun is just one of many tools that person may use, but it's not the gun I'm afraid of, it's the murderous intent.

The outrage at guns causing death is absurd.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929.php

[Poopadoop]

If you turned off your auto-argue switch

Pot. Kettle. Black.

You're the one who started this argument ffs.

[Poopadoop]

I'm surprised you want them to prove insanity first. I can only assume that's your position because it's not Trump's.

I didn't state a position. I stated the fact that Trump's stated position directly contradicted the US constitution.

[Poopadoop]

The issue of gun ownership is cultural more than anything.
In Murica, we believe in personal responsibility and embrace a healthy skepticism that our gov't and/or military will always have our best interests as their primary goal.
Political overthrows are messy, and we are lucky to live in countries which haven't gone through serious periods of lawlessness or self-aggression. Plenty of examples of people living today are not so lucky as we are. Our countries may not be so lucky in the future. It's naive to pretend that vesting your safety in other people is an effective long-term plan for your safety. Your safety ends when those who are supposed to protect you decide to turn against you. Sure, that doesn't look likely in our current political environments, but that doesn't mean that it wont ever be likely.

If a person who doesn't want to kill people owns a gun, they are not threat to me or other people. If a person wants to kill people and doesn't own a gun, they are still a threat to me and other people. The gun is just one of many tools that person may use, but it's not the gun I'm afraid of, it's the murderous intent.

The outrage at guns causing death is absurd.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929.php

The problem is the eternal vigilance you hold over your government and the concomitant spate of gun violence it comes with do little to guarantee your ability to organise any effective resistance to some nebulous threat of tyranny that may or may not come at some future date.

You also ignore there are a lot of ways to resist some hypothetical future tyranny without resorting to violence.

Finally, most successful revolts against tyranny have simply led to a different form of tyranny. Your own peculiar history in this regard may be rare, but it doesn't mean an armed revolt against a hypothetical tyrannic US gov't will lead to a happy outcome. Even if that hypothetical tyranny were overthrown by an armed populace, you may end up with something just as bad or worse.

[Poopadoop]

And this week's castoff from Survivor WH is:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-c...e=news_central

[OngBonga]

I didn't state a position. I stated the fact that Trump's stated position directly contradicted the US constitution.

It does?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Ok, by that measure so is denying a gun to someone certified crazy unconstitutional. In fact, I don't see anything here that distinguishes between adult and child, so denying a 10 y/o a gun is directly contradicting the US constitution.

Only, the Supreme Court have declared that the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited, and can be subject to regulation. Good job.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The problem is the eternal vigilance you hold over your government and the concomitant spate of gun violence it comes with do little to guarantee your ability to organise any effective resistance to some nebulous threat of tyranny that may or may not come at some future date.

Vigilance is a fact of life. What are you suggesting?

The so-called "spate of gun violence" doesn't even make the top 10 list of causes of American deaths.

While you having guns (you are competent to use) cannot guarantee an ability to organize, a lack of guns does guarantee that people attacking you with guns will have an easier time of it.

This "nebulous" threat has resulted in multiple genocides in our own lifetimes. Not so nebulous.
Savage brutality is part of our nature. Asserting otherwise is naive.

You also ignore there are a lot of ways to resist some hypothetical future tyranny without resorting to violence.

Proof or stop with false accusations.

Finally, most successful revolts against tyranny have simply led to a different form of tyranny. Your own peculiar history in this regard may be rare, but it doesn't mean an armed revolt against a hypothetical tyrannic US gov't will lead to a happy outcome. Even if that hypothetical tyranny were overthrown by an armed populace, you may end up with something just as bad or worse.

Everything in these 3 sentences is an argument in favor of a robust self defense strategy.

[Poopadoop]

It does?



Ok, by that measure so is denying a gun to someone certified crazy unconstitutional. In fact, I don't see anything here that distinguishes between adult and child, so denying a 10 y/o a gun is directly contradicting the US constitution.

Only, the Supreme Court have declared that the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited, and can be subject to regulation. Good job.

To my understanding, the SC's job is to interpret the constitution because otherwise every Joe Blow would look for excuses to interpret it any old way that suited their needs. You can disagree with their interpretation and say the constitution doesn't say what the SC argue it does, but legally that won't get you very far.

And so by the SC's interpretation, yes Trump is contradicting the constitution.

[Poopadoop]

Vigilance is a fact of life. What are you suggesting?

The so-called "spate of gun violence" doesn't even make the top 10 list of causes of American deaths.

So because gun violence isn't as prevalent as cancer, it's not an issue?

This "nebulous" threat has resulted in multiple genocides in our own lifetimes. Not so nebulous.
Savage brutality is part of our nature. Asserting otherwise is naive.

Asserting it's inevitable is just as naive.

Proof or STFU with false accusations.

My proof is that nowhere in the post I quoted did you mention it. Hence the word 'ignore'.

Everything in these 3 sentences is an argument in favor of a robust self defense strategy.

Ok, gl.

[wufwugy]

The issue of gun ownership is cultural more than anything.
In Murica, we believe in personal responsibility and embrace a healthy skepticism that our gov't and/or military will always have our best interests as their primary goal.
Political overthrows are messy, and we are lucky to live in countries which haven't gone through serious periods of lawlessness or self-aggression. Plenty of examples of people living today are not so lucky as we are. Our countries may not be so lucky in the future. It's naive to pretend that vesting your safety in other people is an effective long-term plan for your safety. Your safety ends when those who are supposed to protect you decide to turn against you. Sure, that doesn't look likely in our current political environments, but that doesn't mean that it wont ever be likely.

If a person who doesn't want to kill people owns a gun, they are not threat to me or other people. If a person wants to kill people and doesn't own a gun, they are still a threat to me and other people. The gun is just one of many tools that person may use, but it's not the gun I'm afraid of, it's the murderous intent.

The outrage at guns causing death is absurd.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929.php

Salient point.

[wufwugy]

Finally, most successful revolts against tyranny have simply led to a different form of tyranny. Your own peculiar history in this regard may be rare, but it doesn't mean an armed revolt against a hypothetical tyrannic US gov't will lead to a happy outcome.

America has what it takes.

[wufwugy]

Asserting it's inevitable is just as naive.

How's that?

[MadMojoMonkey]

So because gun violence isn't as prevalent as cancer, it's not an issue?

No. It's just much less of an issue than people make it out to be.
I live in St. Louis. #1 in murders per capita, baby.
60 murders / 300,000 people per year.
That's not nearly what people make it out to be and this is the highest in the nation.

Asserting it's inevitable is just as naive.

Who put salt in your coffee?

I never said it's inevitable.

My proof is that nowhere in the post I quoted did you mention it. Hence the word 'ignore'.

C'mon, now.
I also didn't mention hygiene. Guess that means I was arguing to ignore hygiene, then.

You're better than this. Don't go all nanners on me.*

Ok, gl.

???
gl with what?
Arguing that defending myself against one tyranny means I'm probably well suited to defend myself from the next tyranny?

You seem to be suggesting that I'm talking about using guns to overthrow a gov't. That's absurd.
I only suggest using guns to protect yourself. I'm only endorsing self-defense.
Any reading of what I wrote which interprets otherwise is not my intent.
...
I reread my original statement and it can be read as though I'm endorsing the overthrow, but I wasn't. I was only endorsing defending yourself from a potentially violent world.


*Give me credit for changing the "STFU" to "stop" before you responded. Sorry. I hoped I changed it before it was noticed, but the edit was not ninja-y enough.

[Poopadoop]

How's that?

Because predicting the future of a complex system with any certainty is impossible.

[OngBonga]

To my understanding, the SC's job is to interpret the constitution...

In which case Trump isn't contradicting it, since the SC allows for regulation. Trump is arguing for tighter regulation.

[wufwugy]

Because predicting the future of a complex system with any certainty is impossible.

I guess I'm confused. The animal kingdom is an example of a super complex system yet I can predict with a very high degree of certainty that millions of them will die tomorrow.

[Poopadoop]

In which case Trump isn't contradicting it, since the SC allows for regulation. Trump is arguing for tighter regulation.

Even banana and Fox News agree with me on this. If you still wanna argue please go argue with them.

[Poopadoop]

I guess I'm confused. The animal kingdom is an example of a super complex system yet I can predict with a very high degree of certainty that millions of them will die tomorrow.

You can't predict which ones and how they will die though.

[wufwugy]

[Poopadoop]

A lot of parallel universes out there.

[wufwugy]

Which is why it's so amazing to be in this one.

[Poopadoop]

Beliefs are not the same as objective facts.

It will be interesting to see which parallel universe we end up in, that's all I'm going to say.

[Poopadoop]

I would add that it's best to be wary of people making predictions about the probability of future events, especially when they assign a particular outcome a probability of 1. There are a lot of variables that go into things like election outcomes, and any person making such a prediction is almost certainly lacking information on some if not most of those contributing variables.

In particular, saying this or that future event will happen (probability =1) implies the person making the prediction lacks insight into their own lack of predictive power, because if they had such insight they wouldn't try to make such predictions.

I think a similar opinion on the usefulness of that approach was Taleb's one about 538's assignment of probabilities to the '16 election outcome.

[wufwugy]

I would add that it's best to be wary of people making predictions about the probability of future events, especially when they assign a particular outcome a probability of 1. There are a lot of variables that go into things like election outcomes, and any person making such a prediction is almost certainly lacking information on some if not most of those contributing variables.

In particular, saying this or that future event will happen (probability =1) implies the person making the prediction lacks insight into their own lack of predictive power, because if they had such insight they wouldn't try to make such predictions.

True. Sometimes "will happen" is colloquial even if the person doesn't apply a probability of 1.

About predicting future events, I like this: It is easy to fit completely different explanations to the observed facts. Don't trust any interpretation of reality that isn't able to predict

I think a similar opinion on the usefulness of that approach was Taleb's one about 538's assignment of probabilities to the '16 election outcome.

If I recall correctly, that was based on Silver's data inputs. Taleb pointed out how Silver got the statistics wrong; instead the data was only good enough to suggest the election was 50:50.

I used the same data only in part for my prediction. I don't know to what degree Trump really was the favorite, but I believed he was by a lot based on other stuff, which is why I bet on it, giving very favorable odds.

[wufwugy]

What is Trump's policy on gun control?

What's his policy on foreign trade?

How about abortion?

I wanted to respond to this from yesterday.

Here's approximately how conservatives view Trump and these things: conservatives don't focus on what he says as much as on what he does, and sometimes what he says, to whom, and when he says it informs the "what he does" that conservatives focus on. An example might be with immigration. Trump has said all sorts of stuff on immigration, yet conservatives haven't been confused by him. From the outside, this doesn't make sense, but I'll make sense of it for you now.

When Trump entered the scene he took the conservative line on immigration to a T and he did it against a barrage of pressure and when nobody else was doing it and he didn't back down. This informed conservatives on where Trump stood on immigration, because he took risks with what he DID. At later dates Trump said all sorts of stuff about immigration (most of which was wrongly interpreted, but whatever). Some conservatives wavered because they didn't like hearing it, but most conservatives didn't waver one bit. This was in part because they believed what he DOES instead of what he says. On immigration he DID the conservative thing, and on other issues that can help inform what he may do in the future on immigration, conservatives look at what he DID and found that he stuck to his word, the word that he led with and that he took the most risk sticking to.

Currently, conservatives feel like we are in a situation where Trump has kept all of his promises that he has had an opportunity to keep at this point. Because of this, because of what he has done, conservatives aren't concerned that much when he says something that appears different or nuanced or negotiating or whatever. Because conservatives have the evidence they need that by the end of it, Trump will keep his promise. This applies to all of the issues, abortion, guns, whatever.

Now, if Trump ever does give in and sign law that harms conservatives, it'll be a blow to him among conservatives. It won't be a death blow, because people are allowed single strikes. But if he does it twice, or three times, he'll be abandoned by conservatives. I predict Trump will not keep his promises a big fat zero times.

[Poopadoop]

If I recall correctly, that was based on Silver's data inputs. Taleb pointed out how Silver got the statistics wrong; instead the data was only good enough to suggest the election was 50:50.

This was a while ago now, but I don't think that's what Taleb meant. I think his argument was more along the lines of 'you'd be better off flipping a coin to make your prediction than listening to this guy trying to apply probabilities inappropriately.' I think the general sense of his argument was the 'not enough information' one I gave above. I think he also objected to the fact that Silver's probabilties kept changing over time, which suggests it was too sensitive to incoming information.

If Taleb did in fact ever say the election was 50/50, then he was being just as silly as Silver imho (or just being argumentative).

[wufwugy]

Sounds like that could be it.

I don't recall him ever saying it was 50:50, but more along the lines of what you said. I think it was that Taleb claimed that the high variation in the poll results (like Hillary up 9 then Donald up a few days later) meant that the best guess based on that data is about 50:50.

[wufwugy]

Could be that there isn't a hidden investigation into the Obama administration (though evidence suggests there may be). Could be that Trump having Mueller hired was to give the Democrats the mainstream media a goose to chase and to further make them look ridiculous to the general public.

It's funny how the premise a person holds can radically alter everything else that person believes within that domain. For example, some Democrats believe Trump is a sinister, illegally operating person as their premise. From that, they see things that affirm that position. Yet, the premise has no evidence and the emergent ideas have no evidence.

[CoccoBill]

It's funny how the premise a person holds can radically alter everything else that person believes within that domain.

Amen brother.

[wufwugy]

Y'all remember in the second debate when Trump announced that if he wins the election he will get a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary?

So what has happened? He won and instead doesn't talk much at all about that special prosecutor investigating Hillary and instead that prosecutor is investigating him? I think not. Reason dictates that Mueller is that special prosecutor investigating Hillary or that he is a step to getting to that special prosecutor. Unless Trump is an incompetent buffoon (he isn't) and/or a pathological liar (he isn't). Then that means he doesn't care at all about having a special prosecutor investigate the person he said he wanted to, and instead he wants himself to be investigated.

[Poopadoop]

Ya, clever how Mueller keeps indicting people who worked on Trump's campaign to throw the fake media off the trail.

Trump probably told him to do that. 3D chess at it's finest.

[wufwugy]

What's the news on that? So far I've seen kinda nothing. Some Russians not in the country that have no association with Trump, and Manafort whose ties seem to be closer to the Podestas than anybody in Trump's camp

[Poopadoop]

What's the news on that? So far I've seen kinda nothing. Some Russians not in the country that have no association with Trump, and Manafort whose ties seem to be closer to the Podestas than anybody in Trump's camp

I'm sure you're following it more closely than me, but you seem to be missing a couple of names on your list of Trump associates who are in trouble there.

Pretty good cover story to keep Clinton/Obama's guard down though I agree.

[wufwugy]

I don't follow it that much because the base logic is all wrong.

[Poopadoop]

I thought the base logic was it was a ruse to get at Clinton/Obama.

[wufwugy]

I thought the base logic was it was a ruse to get at Clinton/Obama.

I'm referring to the base logic behind the idea that Mueller is going after Trump.

There is zero evidence of Trump committing a crime, the accusations that he did commit a crime have perfect correlation with his butthurt opponents losing the election they thought they had in the bag, and Trump is Mueller's boss.

If somebody thinks in this situation arises a Mueller that is going after Trump crimes, that person has sold himself a bill of goods.

[BananaStand]

I'm referring to the base logic behind the idea that Mueller is going after Trump.

There is zero evidence of Trump committing a crime, the accusations that he did commit a crime have perfect correlation with his butthurt opponents losing the election they thought they had in the bag, and Trump is Mueller's boss.

If somebody thinks in this situation arises a Mueller that is going after Trump crimes, that person has sold himself a bill of goods.

Wuf, I think you need to take a deep breath and prepare yourself for the reality that Mueller most definitely IS going charge someone connected to the Trump campaign with a crime related to Russia. It's going to happen. I don't care how good your driving is, if a cop follows you for 500 miles, he will find a reason to pull you over.

I think it's obvious now that the collusion accusations are dead. Anyone who still thinks that Trump and the Russians conspired to make a quid pro quo arrangement that helped secure Trump's victory is substantially out to lunch. If that happened, then Manafort is sitting on an extremely lucrative "get out of jail free" card and has not played it. If you believe collusion occurred, then please provide a plausible explanation for Manafort's silence

The question we are on to now is 'obstruction of justice'. A key element of that charge is intent. Specifically an intent to conceal a crime, or to divert law enforcement's attention from a crime. So the act of obstruction almost always requires the existence of some other crime, which Congressional committees have already determined doesn't exist.

So the question is..."Why would Trump ask Comey to go easy on Flynn"? Well, maybe that's just how people who haven't spent their life in politics and law enforcement talk. Or maybe Trump was upset about how and why Flynn got charged in the first place. The details of that are pretty iffy. (How do you explain that wuf? If Mueller is on Trump's side...why did he railroad Flynn?). It might still be technically illegal though. And that's where Mueller could just choose to be a dick. If he concludes obstruction...it won't matter. The rules of the special counsel prevent him from charging a sitting President with a crime. All that would do is "sow discord" in the midterms and 2020 elections. Based on the amount of heavily biased democrats on Mueller's team....I'd say this is the most likely outcome.

[wufwugy]

Trump is the target and a crime is what his antagonists want to find. Which means that I'm sitting pretty over here knowing that it's by a probability of coincidence that Trump would actually have committed the crime he is accused of. Well, I take that back, he hasn't even been accused of a crime in the first place.

[BananaStand]

Trump's antagonists have accused him of a crime in the court of public opinion.

They allege that Trump made a backdoor deal with Putin that helped him win the election at the expense of national interests.

The terms of that deal seem to be as follows:

Putin hacks emails from Podesta and the DNC
Putin exposes them through wikileaks
Putin employs 13 agents to initiate a social media marketing campaign of little significance.
Trump launches missile strikes against Russian allies
Trump provides arms to Russian enemies.
Carter Page gets $10 Billion dollars in Russian energy company stock.

That's the whole story. Now we just gotta wait until Mueller puts it all together.

[wufwugy]

Putin hacks emails from Podesta and the DNC

When somebody points a finger at you in such a way that reveals their own fraud yet they keep pointing the finger at you, what comes after is almost certainly bullshit.

[wufwugy]

Lawyer that (I think) Trump just hired lays out the facts and it's glorious as fuck. Highly recommend. Give it a watch. Tell me what ya think.

[wufwugy]

Go back to beginning if it skips ahead to 10.

[BananaStand]

Lawyer that (I think) Trump just hired lays out the facts and it's glorious as fuck. Highly recommend. Give it a watch. Tell me what ya think.

I watched about 2/3 of it. I usually watch Fox so I've heard all this before. You can get the same story in about 5 minutes if you just watch Hannity's opening monologue.

[BananaStand]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...wall-daca.html

Do it Don..

..Do it!

[BananaStand]

Stormy Daniels...

nothingburger

[Poopadoop]

It was never going to be anything but a nothingburger, unless SD pulled out her phone on 60 minutes and showed everyone some dick pics Trump sent her.

The fun part is watching the evangelical right come to grips with the idea of their president being chosen by God to cheat on his pregnant wife with porn stars.

[BananaStand]

The fun part is watching the evangelical right come to grips with the idea of their president being chosen by God to cheat on his pregnant wife with porn stars.

Really?? Are you seeing a lot of this?

EDIT: The real fun part is watching the feminist left try and paint a woman who used sex to advance her career on purpose, as a victim of Weinstein-esque behavior.

[oskar]

President Trump signed the $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill Friday despite an earlier threat to veto the legislation due to the lack of border wall funding and a fix for DACA.

Border wall funding? What do you mean "border wall funding"? I thought the mexicans were going to pay for it!

[oskar]

ARE YOU TELLING ME THE MEXICANS ARE NOT PAYING FOR THE WALL???

[BananaStand]

ARE YOU TELLING ME THE MEXICANS ARE NOT PAYING FOR THE WALL???

Are you telling me that you interpreted Trump's promise in the most narrow and literal sense....like a 12 year old would?

in other words, does it still count if Trump is able to re-negotiate NAFTA, or otherwise invert the trade deficit with Mexico, in a way that generates enough revenue (at Mexico's expense) to pay for the wall?

[Poopadoop]

Sure it counts, because the chance of Mexico allowing itself to be screwed over for $30b in trade voluntarily is less than zero. It would also count if Trump found a suitcase in the Arizona desert with $30b in it that said "Pedro" on it.

[OngBonga]

in other words, does it still count if Trump is able to re-negotiate NAFTA, or otherwise invert the trade deficit with Mexico, in a way that generates enough revenue (at Mexico's expense) to pay for the wall?

I mean from day one this is how I interpreted the threat to make Mexico pay for it. It was always going to be through trade.

[OngBonga]

Sure it counts, because the chance of Mexico allowing itself to be screwed over for $30b in trade voluntarily is less than zero. It would also count if Trump found a suitcase in the Arizona desert with $30b in it that said "Pedro" on it.

Yeah key word "voluntarily".

I have no idea if Trump can make them pay for it, but I'd be willing to assume that Mexico needs USA trade more than the other way around.

[Poopadoop]

I mean from day one this is how I interpreted the threat to make Mexico pay for it. It was always going to be through trade.

yep, only question is how to get that $30b by tricking them into a stupid trade deal. Will be very interesting to see the math on that one.

[CoccoBill]

How exactly is this trade agreement deal gonna work? If Trump puts tariffs on Mexican imports, it'll just raise the prices and it's the American consumer who pays for the wall.

[oskar]

... or the thousands of american companies that outsource to mexico.
And if you could actually "make them pay" in some convoluted way that somehow doesn't mean americans are paying for it, what you're actually doing is making money elsewhere and then spending it on the wall. So that's money that could have been spent on anything. That's not mexico paying for the wall, that's you paying for the wall.

[OngBonga]

...and hurting trade relations with mexico in the process.

Yes, this is true. The rest of your post is tripe. If Trump succeeds in bringing in £30b in increased tarrifs from Mexico, for all intents and purposes, they paid for it.

[OngBonga]

How exactly is this trade agreement deal gonna work? If Trump puts tariffs on Mexican imports, it'll just raise the prices and it's the American consumer who pays for the wall.

This is a more astute observation.

[OngBonga]

I suppose that while the American consumer pays more, American companies just got a little more competetive relative to their Mexican competitors, securing jobs in America, so the overall economic effect could be beneficial.

[BananaStand]

One of the ways Trump has claimed that Mexico will pay for the wall, is by restricting remittances. In other words, shitloads of the money that immigrant workers make, gets sent back to Mexico. Keeping that money in America, and not the Mexican economy, means that Mexico is paying for the wall.

[BananaStand]

How exactly is this trade agreement deal gonna work? If Trump puts tariffs on Mexican imports, it'll just raise the prices and it's the American consumer who pays for the wall.

That's only part of the equation

What if the American consumer gains more in employment income and gov't benefits than it would spend on import tarriffs? Where does that money come from? It comes FROM THE MEXICAN ECONOMY.

[oskar]

Yes, this is true. The rest of your post is tripe. If Trump succeeds in bringing in £30b in increased tarrifs from Mexico, for all intents and purposes, they paid for it.

If I was Trump, I'd make this a very much end-of-term project. So you have the american tax payer pay for it but promise that Mexico will indirectly pay for it through trade tariffs. By when is a question you just dump on the next administration and claim victory.

[BananaStand]

If I was Trump, I'd make this a very much end-of-term project. So you have the american tax payer pay for it but promise that Mexico will indirectly pay for it through trade tariffs. By when is a question you just dump on the next administration and claim victory.

wut??

The wall was at the very top of his list of campaign promises. You could argue that it was a deciding factor in his election.

You think it's remotely possible that he could just blow that off, and get re-elected in 2020, by promising to build a wall in 2024?

[Poopadoop]

ARE YOU TELLING ME THE MEXICANS ARE NOT PAYING FOR THE WALL???

A not-insignificant part of the problem is there is some proportion of the yahoos who were screaming 'BUILD THE WALL!' that are now going to be screaming this instead.

[BananaStand]

A not-insignificant part of the problem .....

What problem??

[Poopadoop]

What problem??

No problem at all. carry on.

[oskar]

wut??

The wall was at the very top of his list of campaign promises. You could argue that it was a deciding factor in his election.

You think it's remotely possible that he could just blow that off, and get re-elected in 2020, by promising to build a wall in 2024?

Yes

A not-insignificant part of the problem is there is some proportion of the yahoos who were screaming 'BUILD THE WALL!' that are now going to be screaming this instead.

We already have one resident yahoo pretty excited about the prospect of paying for the wall because he's somehow convinced that mexico will reimburse him later.

[BananaStand]

No problem at all. carry on.

No, seriously....what problem?