• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Democrats can't agree to give Trump his wall

And again.

You might want to engage in actual argumentation - you know - where you present quotes of what was actually said and in context?

So exactly what is on his own site and how does that support your argument?
Huh?

It’s in the first goddamned paragraph. Stop pretending you are debating in good faith here.

Introduction: The provision of the Patriot Act, Section 326 - the "know your customer" provision, compelling financial institutions to demand identity documents before opening accounts or conducting financial transactions is a fundamental element of the outline below. That section authorized the executive branch to issue detailed regulations on the subject, found at 31 CFR 130.120-121. It's an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5- 10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year. There are several ways to compel Mexico to pay for the wall including the following:
 
It’s in the first goddamned paragraph. Stop pretending you are debating in good faith here.

Well you got one part of debate correct.
How about the others.
What is your argument and just how in the heck does that information support your argument?
 
Well you got one part of debate correct.
How about the others.
What is your argument and just how in the heck does that information support your argument?

...Donald Trump is literally saying Mexico will send us money. This disproves the bull**** “he didn’t mean they’d write a check” narrative your are regurgitating.
 
The other big reason why Democrats cannot cave in to Trump on this wall nonsense is even simpler.
You don't reward hostage takers...especially if Trump is the one taking the hostages, unless you want to see more hostages every week from now on.

If we reward Trump for taking hostages, he'll treat hostage taking the way a pubescent teenage boy treats his genitalia the moment he discovers masturbation.

The primary reason. Not only Trump but any future President as well will have reason to believe shutting down the government is a means of empowerment.
 
Last edited:
...Donald Trump is literally saying Mexico will send us money. This disproves the bull**** “he didn’t mean they’d write a check” narrative your are regurgitating.
Wrong.
He never said they would write a check.
 
Wrong.
He never said they would write a check.

Trump never said it would be a "concrete" wall, he never said Mexico would "write a check", he never exactly said this, or exactly said that....Like the energizer bunny the spin keeps going and going and going and going...
 
Trump never said it would be a "concrete" wall, he never said Mexico would "write a check", he never exactly said this, or exactly said that....Like the energizer bunny the spin keeps going and going and going and going...
You have no point here.
Did he or did he not say they would write a check? Apparently not.
 
While Republicans are trying to make this about a simple matter of "border security" or "who's to blame for the shutdown," there are practical matters for why Democrats can't give Trump his wall.

1)The source of funding for the wall was a lie. Trump supporters will argue that they knew it was a lie, but this demands adhering to the rather...unique...logic that because they were in on the lie this somehow obligates the rest of the country to go along with it. In other words, just because more than one person is in on a con doesn't make it any less of a con. But more to the point, to agree to fund a giant project based on one of the most important aspects of it being a lie simply rewards that lie, and incentivizes the motivation to lie on future projects.

2)Pretty much everything about the wall is a lie, from the artificial sense of urgency surrounding it which spontaneously came into being just as Democrats took control of the House, to the claim that terrorists are flooding across the borders in the thousands, to the claim that immigrants bring disease, to the claim that immigrants are responsible for any meaningful percentage of crime...it's all based on lies. If the wall was a necessary and legitimate need, it wouldn't require lies in its defense. The truth would stand on its own. So as with the above: to agree to fund a giant project based on lies simply rewards those lies, and incentivizes the motivation to lie on future projects.

3)To give Trump his wall proves correct his belief that using Federal workers as pawns is a workable strategy, and he will therefore be sure to repeat the strategy.

4)Similar to the above but even more significant, to provide Trump his wall demonstrates that Trump will be able to demand something unreasonable every time a spending bill is up. Since he will know that Democrats will fold, this will immediately reduce the House to an inferior chamber of Congress (and by extension, an inferior branch of government). Trump will correctly conclude that he could demand anything at all, up to and including the cessation of House oversight over the Executive branch altogether.

5)To give Trump his wall negates Trump's own claim that he owns the shutdown. Why adopt blame for a terrible thing that somebody else has already agreed to shoulder the blame for?

6)Trump has spent so much effort imbuing the wall with racist principles (equating Latinos to vermin, disease, criminals and animals) that for Democrats to agree to a wall necessarily adopts the stink of his racism onto themselves.

7)Trump doesn't even treat the wall issue seriously, so why should Democrats? To date, Trump hasn't landed on a final vision of the wall, hasn't conducted a serious cost analysis of it, can't seem to stick to a single narrative for who will pay for it, and often abandons the wall only to spontaneously make it his prerogative by the end of the day depending on who on Fox News is currently yammering at him. If the wall is such a serious issue, then Trump has treated it as unseriously as possible, and therefore Democrats are not required to treat it as a serious thing that they need to spend a single dollar on.

8)This is technically a political reason and not the most important one, but there's no reason it should be be excluded from the list anyway: Republicans have already lost the public debate on the wall. A majority of the country doesn't see the wall as a priority, doesn't want a shutdown, and they blame the shutdown primarily on Trump and Republicans. Around 32-35% blame Democrats, which is an interesting number because that's a little less than the percentage of the country that comprises Trump's own base. Why should Democrats give in when, as polls are consistently showing, they already won the debate?
While I agree with every point, I think it gets lost in these discussions that Republicans have been shutting down the government and taking hostages since the Gingrich days. Since the Tea Party walked into town it's been escalating to an almost yearly occurrence.

Democrats have allowed Republicans to take Medicare, Social Security, CHIPS, DACA, unemployment benefits, and all kind of other government services for ransom, and they have rewarded Republicans each time this has happened, so we shouldn't be surprised that Republicans are holding out hope that the Democrats will cave.

Republicans have become not just uncompromising, but brutal and sociopathic in what they are willing to do for their agenda. Rewarding them for their tactics and never retaliating has encouraged them to not only continue them, but to also escalate them in the future.

"Oh, we don't have your votes? Fine. WE'LL MAKE YOU GIVE US YOUR VOTES, OR ELSE THESE PEOPLE GET IT!" is something that should have had severe consequences a long, long time ago my friends, and that is why we are where we are.
 
While I agree with every point, I think it gets lost in these discussions that Republicans have been shutting down the government and taking hostages since the Gingrich days. Since the Tea Party walked into town it's been escalating to an almost yearly occurrence.

Democrats have allowed Republicans to take Medicare, Social Security, CHIPS, DACA, unemployment benefits, and all kind of other government services for ransom, and they have rewarded Republicans each time this has happened, so we shouldn't be surprised that Republicans are holding out hope that the Democrats will cave.

Republicans have become not just uncompromising, but brutal and sociopathic in what they are willing to do for their agenda. Rewarding them for their tactics and never retaliating has encouraged them to not only continue them, but to also escalate them in the future.

"Oh, we don't have your votes? Fine. WE'LL MAKE YOU GIVE US YOUR VOTES, OR ELSE THESE PEOPLE GET IT!" is something that should have had severe consequences a long, long time ago my friends, and that is why we are where we are.

Yes, Democrats have fed into Republicans' willingness to use government shutdowns to get what they want. I believe that the idea of Trump having this power was too much to bear, however. A line has to be drawn, and this is it.
 
Wrong.
He never said they would write a check.

Jesus Christ look at you. Just look at how hard you're having to twist that man's every word to pretend he didn't mean what he obviously did mean.
 
You have no point here.
Did he or did he not say they would write a check? Apparently not.

He said that, yes, and on many occasions! He said they are going to pay for the wall, and with the greater context of all the discussion it's obvious he meant they would give us money.
 
Jesus Christ look at you. Just look at how hard you're having to twist that man's every word to pretend he didn't mean what he obviously did mean.

You are confused as that is what you are doing.
 
You are confused as that is what you are doing.

On numerous occasions he said Mexico would pay for the wall, and even put a document on his campaign site explaining how we would get them to pay for the wall.
 
He said that, yes, and on many occasions! He said they are going to pay for the wall, and with the greater context of all the discussion it's obvious he meant they would give us money.
iLOL No.
He did not say they would write a check. Period. You have to twist what he said to make it mean that, which is exactly what you are doing.
 
iLOL No.
He did not say they would write a check. Period. You have to twist what he said to make it mean that, which is exactly what you are doing.

He said they would pay for it. You can quibble over a literal check all you want, I'm not interested. Are you really trying to draw the line between "written check" and some kind of electronic funds transfer or other transfer of money?
 
Tell you what...clarify this: "The source of funding for the wall was a lie."

Some people think that if they write a whole bunch of stuff that it makes them look smart.

And the one reason is a lie. They went ahead with the health-care bill despite it being a complete lie. Healthcare costs went up even though they weren't supposed to you weren't able to keep your doctor even though you were supposed to be allowed to.

The only difference here is that it's Trump. And Trump pushing for the wall it's a signal to his supporters the people that voted for him that he's going to continue trying to do what he said he would in the campaign. Meaning he'd have a solid rock to stand on in the 2020 election.

It's a win-win for Trump. Trump voters like Trump or hate him less than a river runs for Democrat. And Trump can simply blame the Democrats and not build the wall and if he gets the wall he can say that he got to wall.

this is not about policy this is not about principal this is about elections that is it.
 
On numerous occasions he said Mexico would pay for the wall, and even put a document on his campaign site explaining how we would get them to pay for the wall.

Saying they will pay is not saying how they will pay is it? Of course it is not.

Proposing ways they may be compelled to pay is not saying that is exactly how it will be done.
Do you really not understand the differences? Do you really not understand the difference between the words may and will?
 
The whole wall/shutdown ****-show is nothing more than a great big shiny distraction from impending justice.
By the way, DOJ IS closed during the shutdown, imagine that.

But the Mueller investigation cranks forward, the shutdown doesn't affect it at all.
 
Some people think that if they write a whole bunch of stuff that it makes them look smart.

And the one reason is a lie. They went ahead with the health-care bill despite it being a complete lie. Healthcare costs went up even though they weren't supposed to you weren't able to keep your doctor even though you were supposed to be allowed to.
You were allowed to keep your doctor. There was no law stopping you from seeing your doctor. That statement from Obama was a rebuttal to the lie Republican assholes were spewing that the government was going to dictate which doctors you were allowed to see. That was blatantly false.
Your doctor decided to quit? Deal with it. The ACA did not include a provision for indentured servitude.
 
Saying they will pay is not saying how they will pay is it? Of course it is not.

Proposing ways they may be compelled to pay is not saying that is exactly how it will be done.
Do you really not understand the differences? Do you really not understand the difference between the words may and will?

The document on his campaign site explicitly spells out the method of payment he was aiming for. You're falsely attempting to isolate any individual statement so you can leave them open to interpretation, but the greater context of the discussion, speeches, rhetoric, and press releases clearly proves what he meant.
 
Saying they will pay is not saying how they will pay is it? Of course it is not.

Proposing ways they may be compelled to pay is not saying that is exactly how it will be done.
Do you really not understand the differences? Do you really not understand the difference between the words may and will?

The United States does not have the power or authority to force Mexico to pay for welcome tacos never-mind 5.6 billion for a wall. The U.S. can't compel them, order them, demand them, tax them or tariff them in order to get Mexico in some way to fund the wall. The U.S. absolutely cannot 'compel' Mexico in any way. They are a separate country and not under the rule of the tyrant as we are. Mexico paying a single peso will never happen, not in your lifetime or that of your grandchildren.
 
He said they would pay for it. You can quibble over a literal check all you want, I'm not interested. Are you really trying to draw the line between "written check" and some kind of electronic funds transfer or other transfer of money?
JFC! You are wrong on the specific so you want to change the goal posts now and argue something else. Too ****ing bad. Our argument was not that he said Mexico would pay but about a specific item of which you are wrong.


The document on his campaign site explicitly spells out the method of payment he was aiming for. You're falsely attempting to isolate any individual statement so you can leave them open to interpretation, but the greater context of the discussion, speeches, rhetoric, and press releases clearly proves what he meant.

Wrong.
We were arguing a specific, it is you that wants to change the goal posts here.
 
Last edited:
Trump never said it would be a "concrete" wall, he never said Mexico would "write a check", he never exactly said this, or exactly said that....Like the energizer bunny the spin keeps going and going and going and going...

Wait a second, did I hear the word 'concrete' somewhere? No matter what form of payment he meant, he clearly stated dozens of times that Mexico will pay for the way. I have news, they aren't.

 
The United States does not have the power or authority to force Mexico to pay for welcome tacos never-mind 5.6 billion for a wall. The U.S. can't compel them, order them, demand them, tax them or tariff them in order to get Mexico in some way to fund the wall. The U.S. absolutely cannot 'compel' Mexico in any way. They are a separate country and not under the rule of the tyrant as we are. Mexico paying a single peso will never happen, not in your lifetime or that of your grandchildren.
Renegotiation our trade agreement with them and compensating for those funds that are going to be spent on the wall/barrier says otherwise.
 
Back
Top Bottom