GT40s.com Paddock Politics Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
The link is bad and I tried googling the story and those links are bad.

But let’s assume the wall is built. Does anyone believe a wall will stop anyone or anything? It won’t. Also, $20 Billion will soon become $100 Billion, because nothing the government does is built on budget.

Finally, most owners of property on the border don’t want a wall either. There are plenty of stories of border property owners who don’t want their property taken by the government.

As far as I’m concerned, if “Dumbo The Supporter of Wife Beaters” could get Mexico to pay 50% of the wall cost, then I say go for it. The wall is one of his least offensive policies.
 
From MSN news

WASHINGTON — Mexico will never cut a check to the U.S. Treasury, but President Donald Trump is zeroing in on a plan so that the president can argue America's southern neighbor will indeed fund the border wall, according to multiple sources familiar with the discussions.
The plan aides are piecing together would force Mexico to pay for the wall in indirect ways, including through remittance fees and tapping Mexico's trade surplus with the United States.
"He will find a way," said a former Trump adviser who is in close contact with the White House. "The wall will be funded partially or all by an additional revenue stream."
Publicly, the priority is getting the $25 billion or so that Trump says is needed to fund the wall as part of a package deal that would protect so-called Dreamers and reduce family migration. Privately, the White House is mulling over various proposals to ensure U.S. taxpayers are reimbursed for the wall's initial costs - or at least some of the price tag.
While Trump's team has not reached a consensus, leading proposals include adding a small percentage fee on money sent by individuals in the United States to recipients in Mexico. Another is directing a surplus in revenue from a revised trade agreement with Mexico and Canada. White House Director of Legislative Affairs Marc Short has also spoken favorably of a proposal presented by Republican members of Congress to have foreign tech workers, though largely not Mexican, pay for part of the wall, according to a U.S. source familiar with the conversations.
Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, has shared a proposal on remittances with the White House.
"There are many, many proposals in the hopper," she said. "They're going through a process."
Politically, Trump needs to make good on his campaign promise before he begins stumping for Republican candidates this fall, not to mention when he runs for re-election in 2020. In each case, Democrats are likely to attack him for squandering taxpayer money on a needless border wall - a structure he insisted he would force Mexico to pay for.
Chris Chmielenski, NumbersUSA's director of content and activism, said it's probably not so much of an issue for Republicans running in the midterm elections, but that Trump likely wants to "save face" before his own re-election campaign.
"I could see from a political point - for 2020 - them saying, 'We may have to think of some ways,'" Chmielenski said.
Trump repeatedly promised during the 2016 campaign that he would build a wall along the southwest border and force Mexico to pay for it. But Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto has made it clear Mexico would never fund the wall and efforts to get the funding from Congress have yet to materialize.
More than a year into his presidency, Trump has not backed down on the promise, although the size, cost and source of funds for the wall have shifted.
"The Wall will be paid for, directly or indirectly, or through longer term reimbursement, by Mexico," Trump tweeted on Jan. 18.
He raised the pressure Tuesday, saying he'd be willing to shut down the federal government this week if Congress does not approve his border security proposal, which includes the wall.
The White House didn't respond to specific questions about administration planning, but staff directed McClatchy to comments Trump gave last month about the wall to The Wall Street Journal.
"There are many forms of payment," Trump said, citing NAFTA trade agreement as an example. "I could name 10 right now."
One of those is remittance money being sent to Mexico. Remittances sent to Latin America and the Caribbean rose to $74.3 billion, a 7.4 percent increase in 2016, according to the Pew Research Center. Mexico received the largest chunk of the money, $28.6 billion, which was a 9.3 percent increase from the previous year.
Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies has proposed a small fee similar to one being used in Oklahoma. The fee is refundable as a tax credit provided the person includes the payment in his or her taxes. According the state of Oklahoma, the fee raises roughly $12 million a year from those who don't request a refund. Vaughan said those here illegally, at least some of them, won't file their taxes and seek the refund.
The administration is also looking at a proposal floated by Republican Rep. Kevin Yoder of Kansas that could help raise $4 billion toward payment of the $25 billion border wall. Foreign tech workers here legally, largely from India, say they'd gladly kick in an extra $2,500 each or more in green card fees if it meant they could get their green cards faster.
Some of Trump's closest advisers said forcing Mexico to pay for the wall is less important than the wall actually being built. Trump's voter base would be ecstatic regardless of who paid for the wall as it's seen as the most visible sign of the border actually being closed down.
Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and an informal adviser to Trump, said it's significant to Trump himself since he made it a central theme of his campaign. The vow that Mexico would pay for the wall generated some of his loudest applause lines.
"He wants to keep his word to American people," Gingrich said.
Mexican leaders from the president to ministers to former presidents have made it clear that Mexico will never pay for Trump's wall. Alex Nowrasteh of the conservative Cato Institute, said there is really no way to make Mexico pay for it.
As good as taxing remittances may sound to some conservatives, Nowrasteh said, it is likely migrants will simply send their money by bitcoin or via the black market.
"Even if it's indirect, it's as likely as we end up paying for it," Nowrasteh said. "Let's say we put tariffs on Mexican goods. That just means that we'd pay high prices so American goods pay for it."
It's not the first time Trump has floated the idea of taxing remittances. While he was running around the country as a candidate in 2015 and 2016 promising that Mexico would pay for the wall without equivocation or nuance, Trump in fact had a six-step plan anticipating opposition and compromise.
"On day 2 Mexico will immediately protests," the campaign wrote in a two-page briefing. "They receive approximately $24 billion a year in remittances from Mexican nationals working in the United States. The majority of that amount comes from illegal aliens."
Trump made his feelings clear on the importance politically to him in a Jan. 27, 2017, call with Pena Nieto in which Trump acknowledged conceding Mexico would never explicitly pay for a wall along the shared border.
According to a leaked the transcript of the call, Trump pleaded with Pena Nieto to not say publicly that Mexico wouldn't pay.
"Believe it or not, this is the least important thing that we are talking about," Trump said, "but politically this might be the most important talk about."
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
Newt Gingrich is the only person I can think of who could possibly make a worse POTUS than Trump, and now I see he’s back in the news.
Wait a minute...he’s useless as a screen door on a submarine, but I don’t recall him ignoring questions from reporters or trying to bully the country by threatening to shut down the government every time doesn’t get what he wants...maybe I spoke too soon. Trump really is worse than Gingrich...who would have thought that possible?

Doug
 

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
I'm somewhat ambivalent about the wall itself, but completely against paying for it, even though I must be in minority in thinking Trump's promises were hollow rhetoric. What will really set a burr in my shorts will be paying for the wall via tax-supported budget items, with the typical Trump smoke and mirrors explanation after-the-fact that it was actually being paid for by Mexico though obscure, unverifiable funds and fees. That shouldn't be acceptable, regardless of anyone's political leanings in this day and time when our government wont' speak truthfully.
 

Rick Muck- Mark IV

GT40s Sponsor
Supporter
Offered as entertainment and nothing more:




BORDER WALL TO BE LONGER THAN ORIGINALLY PLANNED!



PRESIDENT TRUMP ANNOUNCES SALE OF CALIFORNIA TO MEXICO
WASHINGTON (AP) – February2018

President Trump disclosed that he has reached an agreement with Enrique Pena Nieto, President of Mexico, which provides for the sale of substantially all of the State of California to the country of Mexico.

President Trump noted that this deal, which he claims “is his largest real estate deal ever” is a win-win for everyone involved. One of the benefits he says he will highlight during a prime time address from the oval office later this evening, will include using the proceeds received by the US from Mexico to
1) pay for the Wall (fulfilling yet another campaign promise), a wall which will now include the length of the eastern border of California,
2) fund all the infrastructure spending in the remaining 49 states and
3) pay to relocate the 67 Republicans that currently reside in California.

He also noted that Federal money saved from the reduction of California citizens on US social programs will allow those social programs to be cash positive in less than 3 years.

Mexican President Nieto announced that he has already introduced a bill to the Mexican Congress asking to change his country’s name to MexiCal.

Other benefits President Trump intends to discuss during this evening’s prime time address include:

California will now be able to act as a sanctuary state within MexiCal noting that there is much more room for the refugees who will find the climate in the State of California more desirable than the climate in US cities such as NYC, Detroit or Chicago.

The elimination of the existing border between Mexico and California will allow drugs to flow more freely between Mexico and the users in Hollywood. Drug tunnel diggers at the Tijuana border will now be able to use their skills to dig tunnels under Los Angeles to help ease congestion in that city and allow rioters to move about the city’s universities more freely.

The U.S. taxpayer will no longer be on the hook for any future disaster relief required once the next megaquake hits California. The space in the Capitol and other DC buildings vacated by representatives of California will be fumigated and turned into “time-out rooms” for the press as well as Liberty Centers where US citizens can meet with their congressmen to discuss the pursuit of economic freedom

Nancy Pelosi released a statement stating that she looks forward to making the Mexican President’s life miserable and prefers the year round weather in Mexico City to that of DC. Her office has already announced a schedule of fund raising activities for what is believed to be an upcoming campaign to run for President of MexiCal. Papers released along with Trump’s statement reveal that a newly incorporated real estate company, pmurT, Inc., which was intimately involved in the deal discussions, will receive a broker fee of $25 billion on the California sale.

An anonymous pmurT, Inc. representative has revealed that the profits on the deal are HUGE and will be used to purchase, develop and convert all abandoned US Federal facilities in California into special high end retreats and resorts which will assist California residents with managing their euphoria and transition into the nanny state they have so long desired to be. The exact northern border of the new MexiCal is still under negotiation.

Apparently the White House is concerned that certain members of congress may be unwilling to give up California’s wine country and are suggesting that the northern border align with the north end of the Golden Gate Bridge. California residents will be issued special blue cards to cross the border into the US so that the total number of California liberals entering the US can be tracked and at any point in time not exceed predetermined levels.
Residents that remain in California after the effective date of the sale will not be allowed to seek refugee status in the US in the future.

Mexican President Nieto stated he is thrilled with the deal and is looking forward to declaring Spanish the national language for his newly acquired territory and opening SSL (Spanish as a second language) schools throughout California. He also noted that funding for the transaction would come from the Mexican drug cartels, which have agreed to provide low interest loans to Mexico so long as they are allowed to move their cash out of Switzerland and the Cayman Islands back into Mexico tax free.

White House representatives refused to confirm rumors that a similar deal was in the works for the sale of Northeastern states from NY through Maine, to Canada.

President Trump wrapped up his statement stating, “This deal is HUGE and will help Make America, albeit a little smaller, Great Again.”
 

Pat

Supporter
Newt Gingrich is the only person I can think of who could possibly make a worse POTUS than Trump, and now I see he’s back in the news.
Wait a minute...he’s useless as a screen door on a submarine, but I don’t recall him ignoring questions from reporters or trying to bully the country by threatening to shut down the government every time doesn’t get what he wants...maybe I spoke too soon. Trump really is worse than Gingrich...who would have thought that possible?

Doug

Doug, you forgot to mention Mrs. Clinton. After reading "Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign by Allen and Parnes, you can decide for yourself her fitness for office.

Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign - Kindle edition by Jonathan Allen, Amie Parnes. Politics & Social Sciences Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.
 
Doug, you forgot to mention Mrs. Clinton. After reading "Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign by Allen and Parnes, you can decide for yourself her fitness for office.

Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign - Kindle edition by Jonathan Allen, Amie Parnes. Politics & Social Sciences Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

Well, I’m happy that Dumbo The Supporter of Wife Beaters finally came out TODAY and unequivocally said he’s totally opposed to domestic violence, even though one week ago he said absolutely nothing about Rob Porter’s ex-wives and ex-girlfriend, but showed vociferous support for hard working Harvard grad Rob Porter. What a F’ing Moron, which is also what his Secretary of State called him.

Worst president in history. But at least for $130,000 he had some great sex with Stormy and got her to keep quiet until after the election. If we could only gain access to the infamous Pee Pee tape from the Russian hotel across from the Kremlin.

Can’t wait for Mueller to indict him or at least subpoena him so he can perjure himself, since he’s incapable of not lying. And then we can impeach him. :thumbsup:
 

Dave Hood

Lifetime Supporter
Clinton would have made a lousy President, but our election of Donald J. Trump was the most embarrasing moment ever for the United States. He's simply a raging narcissist. Yes, his tax reform was a good thing. But as a leader, he's a total failure for our country.
 
Then what Rod?

As they say in team sports, when someone gets hurt and can’t play, “next man up.”

But more importantly, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Hope Hicks, Stephen Miller, Betsy Devos, and all the other losers will be gone. Also, we wouldn’t have federal judge nominees and other cabinet officials who don’t have single clue about the job they’re being new nominated for, being nominated and possibly approved by Congress. Thankfully, some of these complete morons don’t even pass the “smell test” to Republicans in Congress.

Republicans were in an uproar about Clinton’s emails getting into the wrong hands, but we have wife beaters and other losers without security clearance viewing classified intelligence.

There are scores of people working in the White House without full security clearance. Do you know who has permanent security clearances? EVERY MEMBER OF SPECIAL COUNSEL BOB MUELLER’S TEAM. Surprised? I think not.

This whole presidency has been a $hitshow.
 

Randy V

Moderator-Admin
Staff member
Admin
Lifetime Supporter
Impeachment is not the end of a Presidency. This snippet from the WWW seems to lay it out pretty well...
Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both impeached.
Since some people think" impeached" means canned, sacked, fired, or given the boot. I will just clarify here that the act of impeaching is strictly a House of Representatives action. It is the House indicting the person for possible dissmissal . The trial is then held by the Senate. Neither Johnson or Clinton were convicted, so both remained in office. Other federal officials besides the President can be impeached by the House and tried by the Senate.
The fact that only two US presidents have been impeached lends a good deal of gravity to impeachment.
 

Pat

Supporter
Uh does it? A couple quotes from the article:

"It didn't stop people from crossing," she says. "It just forced them to cross in the deadliest stretches of the border."

“Smith says the fence has actually created a sort of perverse and unintended consequence: It is keeping people in the United States who used to go back to Mexico.

Very selective Doug, sort of like CNN. You quoted the "Border activist" who makes a speculative comment about the crossing problems moving from San Diego to Arizona.

Interestingly, you didn't quote assistant the chief of the Border Patrol's San Diego sector. "Here in San Diego, we have proven that the border infrastructure system does indeed work," Henry says. "It is highly effective." Or the local resident, rancher Carol Kimsey, who lives in a valley near the Pacific Ocean on the U.S.-side of the fence who says the border barrier has improved the quality of life in the area.

"It was pretty seriously bad," she recalls of the prefence days. "They were tearing up everything. They'd just go through fences. They didn't care."

Instead you only quoted a "Border activist" who makes a speculative comment about the crossing problems moving from San Diego to Arizona. The "activist" goes on to say, "During the last decade, millions of people have continued to cross the border illegally — mostly in Arizona. That's the next target for those who want to build double- and triple-fencing." So the "activist actually makes the case for building more wall.
 
The left, media included makes their case based on half truths and innuendo, or outright lies, that once out there, even when shown the true facts, a huge percentage of people still believe to be true.
 
Very selective Doug, sort of like CNN.

Not Doug, me.

Just a bit hypocritical, no? Pot calling the kettle black? You selected a specific article to serve your point, which was about a wall stopping pr helping impede illegal immigration.

I'm not going to waste my time selecting a link to an article that serves my point, but do you really think a wall stops or impedes illegal immigration? Maybe just the morons, like Dumbo "The Supporter of Wife Beaters and Porn Stars", maybe.

How did El Chapo escape prison a few years ago? He tunneled out. You do realize that there are tunnels being dug and have been dug between the US and Mexico? I remember one of these tunnels being discovered and making the news. And is there a wall that can't be scaled with right amount of effort?

Simply defies my logic that a wall will stop illegal immigration, but as I said earlier, build the wall, although you'll be taking property away from US citizens.

But I don't want to pay for it with my tax dollars. Let Mexico pay for it, just like F'ing Moron said.
 
The left, media included makes their case based on half truths and innuendo, or outright lies, that once out there, even when shown the true facts, a huge percentage of people still believe to be true.

Al, what facts are you speaking about? What you said above is just right wing ding dong Hannity BS. A wall will not stop or impede illegal immigration. Illegals will tunnel under it or climb over it. Or just come right through the border crossing in cars and trucks. That's why there are news stories of illegal immigrants dying or almost dying due to dehydration in the back of trucks.

Facts? Puh-leeze.
 

Pat

Supporter
Not Doug, me.

Apologies Rod, no insult intended.

As for walls, they can work but it does matter how much effort you want to put into it. I've spent time patrolling the Czech, East German borders as well as the Korean DMZ and their draconian measures at border enforcement certainly did work but their task was/is to keep politically oppressed people in, not, keep economic refugees out. So to say a wall couldn't impede illegal entry is simply silly. Nothing is 100% foolproof but it isn't a binary choice either. Getting the millions down to thousands or even hundreds would be a favorable outcome.
As for reasonable measures, a study of the experience of Israel West Bank Barrier determined that the barrier together with associated security activities was effective in preventing suicide bombings and other attacks and fatalities with little if any apparent displacement. The study colluded changes in terrorist behavior likely resulted from the construction of the Barrier, not from other external factors or events.

The Situational Prevention of Terrorism: An Evaluation of the Israeli West Bank Barrier | SpringerLink

I've previously provided the experience in San Diego.

But you make my point, the human carnage of truckloads of dying illegals, tons of illicit drugs and human trafficking victims is unacceptable. They are coming in because parts of the border are not adequately enforced. That is current state and the outcome of doing nothing. It is also partially driven by an expectation of amnesty for those who economic refugees and profits by those trafficking. But if one supports the border carnage, then one certainly wouldn't want to do anything about it.

All that said, without e-verify, reasonable visa overstay enforcement and coherent limits on chain migration a wall would merely be a useless symbol.
 
Last edited:
Impeachment is not the end of a Presidency. This snippet from the WWW seems to lay it out pretty well...

Yes, Randy, I actually do understand the process of impeachment. :rolleyes:

But, I'm speculating that Mueller is building a pretty darn good case of collusion, conspiracy, perjury, treason and/or obstruction of justice, especially with two convicted felons already turning on the Dumbo, that we'll get Dumbo across the "finish line" (convicted and tossed) or he'll just resign.

If Dumb$hit were innocent, then why not talk to Mueller, why is he hiding? Why fire or try to fire everyone in the DOJ and FBI that are leading the Russia and obstruction of justice investigation? Why?

Could it be because F'ing Moron is GUILTY?

And then there's this real potential that the Republicans will lose the majority in both the House and Senate, or at least the House, in the midterms of 2018. There are conservative establishment Republicans now saying that it's time for Republicans to vote Democrat in order to purge Republicans that buttress "The Supporter of Wife Beaters and Porn Stars."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top