• 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!

"Mexico will pay for it."

I just gave you an example and you ignored it. Why?

You did not offer any amount for the (alleged future?) increase in federal revenue that your "example" has produced (much less it's cost to Mexico) - I seriously doubt that it approaches $5B but feel free to tell us your best guesstimate.
 
See post #13. They already have started paying for it.

....from yourlink:”Ford CEO Mark Fields called the move “a vote of confidence” in Trump, but primarily a response to a decline in North American demand for small cars like those that would have been made at the Mexican plant. He said Ford would have made the same decision even if Trump had not been elected.
 
You did not offer any amount for the (alleged future?) increase in federal revenue that your "example" has produced (much less it's cost to Mexico) - I seriously doubt that it approaches $5B but feel free to tell us your best guesstimate.

So, in your mind, jobs that were going to Mexico but are now staying in the U.S., doesn't count? Nothing relating to increased revenues or jobs here, that wouldn't have happened, counts?
 
....from yourlink:”Ford CEO Mark Fields called the move “a vote of confidence” in Trump, but primarily a response to a decline in North American demand for small cars like those that would have been made at the Mexican plant. He said Ford would have made the same decision even if Trump had not been elected.

Yes...just a "coincidence" they canceled it when Trump took over, right when they were going to do their unveiling....hmmm....
 
That was an option of many options. Probably would've been the cheapest option for Mexico. The other options will cost them more.

Oh, options! Please list out these options!
 
Yes...just a "coincidence" they canceled it when Trump took over, right when they were going to do their unveiling....hmmm....

You need to fully read your links............CT Forum is down the hall.........:2wave:
 
You need to fully read your links............CT Forum is down the hall.........:2wave:

Yes...you believe in propaganda, despite reality.
 
One that references the one-time payment from Mexico to finance the wall, no less.

As an option, probably a cheaper option than what the other ones will be. Would've been smarter for Mexico to have taken it.
 
Yes...you believe in propaganda, despite reality.

Your link! You seem to want to poke a hornet’s nest this morning, sleep poorly or is boredom setting in?
 
So, in your mind, jobs that were going to Mexico but are now staying in the U.S., doesn't count? Nothing relating to increased revenues or jobs here, that wouldn't have happened, counts?

The Great Wall Of Trump (GWOT) had no effect or impact on that business decision and you know it. Tariff/trade policy is in no way dependent on the GWOT. If congress (or Trump) was serious about stopping the flow of illegal immigrants (much of which is by visa overstays) then they would enact mandatory E-Verify. The GWOT will have absolutely no impact on the 12M to 20M illegal immigrants now within the US interior. Why concentrate on a very expensive policy to slow down thousands when you could cause millions to "self-deport" by removing the employment magnet which is drawing and keeping illegal immigrants here?
 
Here's another option that can be taken, and shows how much money we lose to Mexico, leaving our economy. An option that would easily generate lots of revenue.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/02/news/economy/mexico-remittances/index.html

Two main forces drove the trend: Mexico's weak currency, the peso, and President Trump's threat to slap a tax on cash shipments, known as remittances, sent from the U.S. to Mexico.

Mexicans sent home $26.1 billion from January to November 2017, according to figures released Tuesday by the central bank of Mexico. That's the most ever recorded and better than the $24.1 billion sent in 2016 over the same period.
 
The Great Wall Of Trump (GWOT) had no effect or impact on that business decision and you know it. Tariff/trade policy is in no way dependent on the GWOT. If congress (or Trump) was serious about stopping the flow of illegal immigrants (much of which is by visa overstays) then they would enact mandatory E-Verify. The GWOT will have absolutely no impact on the 12M to 20M illegal immigrants now within the US interior. Why concentrate on a very expensive policy to slow down thousands when you could cause millions to "self-deport" by removing the employment magnet which is drawing and keeping illegal immigrants here?

We why address the ones who are here illegally if you don't stop more from coming in? Would you bail water in a boat without plugging the hole?
 
Your link! You seem to want to poke a hornet’s nest this morning, sleep poorly or is boredom setting in?

Hmmm...Let me see what your critical thinking skills are...if you're running a business and someone enacted something that would cost you money, but you changed your current cheaper plans and policies in order to avoid that enacted policy, would you openly admit to it, further encouraging the same?
 
You asked for a list of options and now you're trying to complain?

Lol! No I am enjoying you proving my point!

Let me break that memo down for you.

The idea was putting those actions in place would put pressure on Mexico to write us a check. However it was half baked. The statute they cited wasn't even correct.

So it was a lie. And it is a pretty glaring one. But even though it was well documented, videotaped, and undeniable you are trying to rationalize it. That is why it is hilarious. You are no different than the liberals who defended Obama on Obamacare. Hell, you are worse because now you are a hypocrite complaining about their lies while pushing your own.
 
Lol! No I am enjoying you proving my point!

Let me break that memo down for you.

The idea was putting those actions in place would put pressure on Mexico to write us a check. However it was half baked. The statute they cited wasn't even correct.

So it was a lie. And it is a pretty glaring one. But even though it was well documented, videotaped, and undeniable you are trying to rationalize it. That is why it is hilarious. You are no different than the liberals who defended Obama on Obamacare. Hell, you are worse because now you are a hypocrite complaining about their lies while pushing your own.

No...it was other methods to gain revenue.
 
We why address the ones who are here illegally if you don't stop more from coming in? Would you bail water in a boat without plugging the hole?

Boats with properly working bilge pumps don't sink. ;)

The (partially funded) Great Wall Of Trump (GWOT) will never stop illegal immigration or remove even one gallon from the allegedly sinking ship. Trump simply wants anything that he can call a "win" or a "campaign promise kept" and the demorats are bound and determined to stop that from happening.

Ask yourself (or explain to us) why Trump did not insist on fully funding the GWOT in the 2018 'budget' bills? Could it be that congressional republicants (and Trump?) opposed that ($25B?) level of additional deficit spending while pushing for a tax rate cut?

Meanwhile, we the sheeple get absolutely no improvement in either border security or in interior immigration law enforcement. MAGA indeed.
 
Boats with properly working bilge pumps don't sink. ;)

The (partially funded) Great Wall Of Trump (GWOT) will never stop illegal immigration or remove even one gallon from the allegedly sinking ship. Trump simply wants anything that he can call a "win" or a "campaign promise kept" and the demorats are bound and determined to stop that from happening.

Ask yourself (or explain to us) why Trump did not insist on fully funding the GWOT in the 2018 'budget' bills? Could it be that congressional republicants (and Trump?) opposed that ($25B?) level of additional deficit spending while pushing for a tax rate cut?

Meanwhile, we the sheeple get absolutely no improvement in either border security or in interior immigration law enforcement. MAGA indeed.

The walls and fences we already have up in various areas works so why do you say they don't, despite the facts? As for why it didn't happen before, it still wouldn't have passed because the Republicans didn't have a filibuster-proof majority. So pushing it then would've meant it still wouldn't have happened and it would've made Republicans look bad/worse. Now that Dems have the House he can push for it, and still not get it, but get the Dems a little dirty as well.

So it's a mixture of politicking and reality.
 
Back
Top Bottom