General US Politics

[Tryhard]

The American election affects the entire world, whether you like it or not. That's the power of the American empire.

Here's why it directly concerns me. If Hillary wins, Hamas will continue to receive funds. We'll have another war, we'll be villified and then maybe the USA will decide that enough is enough and it is time to end "gross human rights violations" by sending airstrikes against us. I live less than a kilometer away from the Israeli central command building.

Yeah, I said it. If Hillary is elected President, I'm worried that there's a chance (a small one but it's definitely there after considering the last 8 years) that I'm not living in 4 years.

I mean, I can remember you said similar things about if Obama was elected over Mitt Romney that it would mean horrible things for Israel four years ago. Four years later, and I'm not sure that has happened at all.

I'm a bit confused about what you're really arguing against here. Over the last like 20 pages or so the only argument that's been brought up in Hillary's favor is that she's less a sack of shit than Dolan is. If anybody said that he's actually a good president and that they'd gladly vote her I must've missed it.

I believe there's a few who said that or implied it, but not many.

[Alertcircuit]

I'm a bit confused about what you're really arguing against here. Over the last like 20 pages or so the only argument that's been brought up in Hillary's favor is that she's less a sack of shit than Dolan is. If anybody said that he's actually a good president and that they'd gladly vote her I must've missed it.

That's essentially my thought process. She shares a good chunk of policy ideas as me, but there are enough different to make me not enthusiastic and she always seems like she's hiding something. But she seems like a stable, somewhat intelligent person, which is a lot more than I can say for Donald. It makes me nervous when a Presidential candidate can be so easily prompted by an interviewer into saying he wants to give weapons to Saudi Arabia, or punishing women who get abortions. And he's stated multiple times he wants to abolish the "Department of Environmental", which is not a thing that exists. That kind of shit is what drowned Rick Perry in 2012.

Though I can personally see why you as somebody who doesn't live in the USA would be scared of the prospect of Hillary becoming the next president. I, for one, do not fancy the thought of getting dragged into a world-war against Russia myself so I'd prefer just about anybody else as a president over her. But you can you really argue that it's wrong for somebody living in the USA to reject Dolan like that? I mean, the majority of people that support him - supposedly "angry white men afraid of losing their jobs" - will vote directly against their own economic interests. It's not far-fetched to assume that this can have catastrophical consequences.

Arguably one of the main reasons the U.S. and Russia haven't gone to war is nuclear deterrence, a concept that Donald apparently doesn't understand, because "If we make them, why don't we use them?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpxr9ZUp7N0

Edited August 31, 2016 by Alertcircuit

[Life]

I mean, I can remember you said similar things about if Obama was elected over Mitt Romney that it would mean horrible things for Israel four years ago. Four years later, and I'm not sure that has happened at all.

Don't think I did so if you can find me proof, I'd appreciate it.

In any regard, Israel's relationship with the USA has taken a downturn since we've had a full operation in Gaza sonce and Obama has been more hostile to us than any president ever.

If he doesn't agree with Israel, fine. But don't pretend to be on our side whe you fund the other side's terrorist government.

[Tryhard]

Don't think I did so if you can find me proof, I'd appreciate it.

In any regard, Israel's relationship with the USA has taken a downturn since we've had a full operation in Gaza sonce and Obama has been more hostile to us than any president ever.

If he doesn't agree with Israel, fine. But don't pretend to be on our side whe you fund the other side's terrorist government.

Mostly in this topic in general. It was four years ago, to be fair.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=35973&p=2177920

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=35973&p=2177986

http://imgur.com/a/2OFTt

Edited August 31, 2016 by Tryhard

[Lord Raven]

Politifact is also owned by a company that is endorsing Clinton - and you need only investigate their history of endorsements to see where their allegiance lies. Politifact has been caught multiple times giving pubs "false" ratings and cherry picking for the most minute details, the most ridiculous being when they take expressions and phrases at face value for the sake of not giving someone a true rating. Their information and research is useful, but their conclusions shouldn't always be referenced, they're often as subjective as anyone else's take on it.

Just saying, politifact is not an academic, unbiased resource that proves beyond all doubt which candidate is most honest. I'm not going to say Trump is more honest, but I'm also not interested in getting into the severity of Clinton's lies. Who cares which of them is the most honest when they're both so dishonest they aren't worthy of anyone's confidence?

The logic is this; if Hillary is a liar, that means she's lying about not wanting to remove the 2nd amendment and just about everything else. However, this same logic can be applied to Trump, since if he is a liar then he is also lying about everything; so clearly this logic does not apply.

His argument at that point was simply that "Hillary is a damn liar, so she's gonna get rid of the 2nd Amendment even though she said otherwise." This is unsound logic, and showing that Trump is an order of magnitude worse - which can be easily shown through politifact (and I highly doubt that bias alone is the reason why there's such a huge gap between the two candidates) - completely paints his view as hypocritical, seeing as he bought into Trump's thing.

Random aside: I'm looking into Trump's speech at Lansing where he "offered solutions to the black community about their problems," and all I'm seeing is him saying "what do you have to lose?" ... which isn't a solution, it's just as much rhetoric as the Democratic Party had supposedly done.

Uhhh, also just saying, Jews are by far the victims of the most religiously motivated hate crimes even today, including in the US according to FBI statistics. It's extremely under reported by mainstream media. You might not want to get into an argument about why Jews (or anyone for that matter) might be invested in politics around the globe lol?

http://bridge.georgetown.edu/when-islamophobia-turns-violent-the-2016-u-s-presidential-elections/

Whether or not you believe this - and yes, I do know that Jews are more targeted - this does not bode well for Muslims already in the US. This is exactly what I'm afraid of, and if Trump is elected in November and keeps up the anti-Islamic hate speech then I'm not sure what can happen to these numbers on basis. The dude knows how to rile people up.

We all discussed a while back how his comments of "maybe the second amendment people will take care of Hillary Clinton" is dangerous to say for a presidential candidate, whether or not it was a shitty joke about her assassination or if it was about getting people to vote can incite the worst type of person. Especially when a presidential candidate says it. It hasn't been much different for American Muslims, and I have no reason to believe that it will be much different, considering these spikes in violence happened in December - which was when Trump announced his "immigration plan." When I'm talking about Jews in this scenario, it's that they haven't actually been targeted directly by policies or hate speech by a politician.

This is the last time I'm responding to Life for a while, and I'm only responding to one thing in the post.

There is logic in my posts. You simply don't like the opinion so you dismiss it out of hand. Otherwise, explaining why gang crime is the main factor for why black communities suffer would have been rebutted.

This is 100% false. When have I done this before the previous few posts I've made towards you? It's fucking tiring to argue with you when you say things like this;

TRIGGER WARNING: Shit might get real here. And it's LONG.

The more I talk about Hillary, the more venom comes out.

I don't care that Hillary Clinton says that she doesn't want to abolish the 2nd ammendment. She also said that she didn't leak department secrets (false), she had provided all the emails on her private server (false) and that the Clinton Foundation would operate independent of the Clintons before becoming SoS (false).

Basically, stuff that is completely based on emotion and not logic. I'm tired of entertaining you and my friends keep calling me out on why I continue to do so. I have also rebuked your stuff about gang crime as irrelevant to the problem that was being argued, by the way, because I have no reason to contradict a fact, I just have a lot of reason to dismiss it as irrelevant.

You of all people should be damn well aware that I have not been dismissive towards you. I have addressed most if not all points you have brought up until I frankly got tired of arguing because I have far more important things to do than argue with someone who gets all bent out of shape and emotional over everything when he's discussing with other people. I have treated you with more respect than I honestly felt you deserved, not because of your views but because of your attitude.

Hell, your reason for getting emotional over everything ends up having more to do with her domestic policy than her foreign policy - even though her foreign policy is the reason you should care, and the domestic policy has nothing to do with you. Pick a side and stick with it.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Tangerine]

We all discussed a while back how his comments of "maybe the second amendment people will take care of Hillary Clinton" is dangerous to say for a presidential candidate, whether or not it was a shitty joke about her assassination or if it was about getting people to vote can incite the worst type of person. Especially when a presidential candidate says it. It hasn't been much different for American Muslims, and I have no reason to believe that it will be much different, considering these spikes in violence happened in December - which was when Trump announced his "immigration plan." When I'm talking about Jews in this scenario, it's that they haven't actually been targeted directly by policies or hate speech by a politician.

I don't disagree with anything else you said, but this sticks out in particular. Both Clinton AND Joe Biden either referenced assassination or implied shooting Obama in the 2008 election. This is not a new thing in politics and certainly not unique to Trump, the difference is that it was blown up this cycle because everything Trump says gets blown up into something more than it is. In fact, Biden was much more obvious, saying that "Obama will have an issue if he tries to fool with my Beretta, I'm not bad with it". You can't interpret that very many ways.

Regardless, Trump isn't single handedly responsible for anti-muslim feelings in the country, and in all likeliness isn't even a top three factor. San Bernadino happened in December. The Paris attacks happened not even a month before. It's very much a stretch to say that Trump's immigration plan is more responsible for it than the fact that two widely reported on terror attacks happened at the exact same time as violence against muslims began rising. Trump certainly took advantage of it to further his own political interests and I doubt anyone would not consider him a slimeball for it, but they need to be held responsible for what they've done and they need to be admonished by muslim communities. These people are the ones damaging the reputation of muslims the most, not politicians.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

very much true, don't also forget the terrible Orlando shooting, i can say that I've never felt these feelings i have before until these attacks, one of them my cousin could've died in, the apologists for these actions don't really help me relax on my views either.

to me it really does feel like "well not all of them are bad people" seems to mean "so because of that, none of them are bad people", nobody wanting to address an issue that's going on because that might be considered racist, the fear being called racist is amazing these days.

[Tangerine]

The Orlando shooting happened way after violence against muslims began to spike.

Either way, there are two sides to every coin. People who are justifying, excusing or shifting blame regarding these attacks are extremely worrying, but so to are the people responsible for the spike in violent crime against muslims based purely on a commonality shared with the attackers.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Tangerine

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

i'll concede to that, as its the truth.

there are two sides to every conflict after all.

[Lord Raven]

I don't disagree with anything else you said, but this sticks out in particular. Both Clinton AND Joe Biden either referenced assassination or implied shooting Obama in the 2008 election. This is not a new thing in politics and certainly not unique to Trump, the difference is that it was blown up this cycle because everything Trump says gets blown up into something more than it is. In fact, Biden was much more obvious, saying that "Obama will have an issue if he tries to fool with my Beretta, I'm not bad with it". You can't interpret that very many ways.

I guarantee ya Barack Obama aint takin my shotgun, so dont buy that malarkey. Dont buy that malarkey. Theyre gonna start peddling that to you. Ive got two. If he tries to fool with my Beretta hes got a problem. I like that little over and under. Im not bad with it, Biden said. So give me a break. Give me a break.

While there's not many ways to take that, in context Biden's reads as "man you guys are dumb for thinking he's trying to abolish the second amendment." The greater point was that Obama wasn't trying to take away people's guns.

Trump's is much more cynical in nature; it's "Hillary's taking our guns away so do something about it." You can isolate one thing which is the threat, but Trump's was incredibly threatening given the context, and Biden's was clearly more of a joke given the context.

Hillary mentioned that the primaries aren't over until they're over and referenced Kennedy (who was assassinated). She also acknowledged that referencing Kennedy was in poor taste later on.

Regardless, Trump isn't single handedly responsible for anti-muslim feelings in the country, and in all likeliness isn't even a top three factor. San Bernadino happened in December. The Paris attacks happened not even a month before. It's very much a stretch to say that Trump's immigration plan is more responsible for it than the fact that two widely reported on terror attacks happened at the exact same time as violence against muslims began rising. Trump certainly took advantage of it to further his own political interests and I doubt anyone would not consider him a slimeball for it, but they need to be held responsible for what they've done and they need to be admonished by muslim communities. These people are the ones damaging the reputation of muslims the most, not politicians.

I agree, but if the presidential is goading people along and saying "I told you so!", it's encouraging divisiveness that is basically sanctioned by the commander-in-chief. You see how this is different than just news outlets saying it yeah? And it's much more likely to become a problem as a result.

I have more but I'm always trying to be careful when I respond in any SD thread, so I'll wait until I get home, but if you want to see what I'm feeling or where I'm going with any sort of paranoia I may have - be it rational or irrational - there it is.

Trump is completely unfit to be a president and the fact that people are saying things in this thread like "Hillary wants to bring terrorists to America" - from Trump supporters - makes me wonder how many hold an even more misguided view than that.

[Tangerine]

While there's not many ways to take that, in context Biden's reads as "man you guys are dumb for thinking he's trying to abolish the second amendment." The greater point was that Obama wasn't trying to take away people's guns.

Trump's is much more cynical in nature; it's "Hillary's taking our guns away so do something about it." You can isolate one thing which is the threat, but Trump's was incredibly threatening given the context, and Biden's was clearly more of a joke given the context.

Hillary mentioned that the primaries aren't over until they're over and referenced Kennedy (who was assassinated). She also acknowledged that referencing Kennedy was in poor taste later on.

Both were clearly not serious calls for assassination/murder is my point lol.

Trump flat out said it's not what he meant, again no different than Clinton rescinding her Kennedy reference for why she was staying in the race. They were interpreted the same way at the time, and both corrected the press afterwards. It's a non-story and a contributing factor to the election's appearance of a reality show. Dumb he-said-she-said drama has taken center stage.

I agree, but if the presidential is goading people along and saying "I told you so!", it's encouraging divisiveness that is basically sanctioned by the commander-in-chief. You see how this is different than just news outlets saying it yeah? And it's much more likely to become a problem as a result.

I have more but I'm always trying to be careful when I respond in any SD thread, so I'll wait until I get home, but if you want to see what I'm feeling or where I'm going with any sort of paranoia I may have - be it rational or irrational - there it is.

Trump is completely unfit to be a president and the fact that people are saying things in this thread like "Hillary wants to bring terrorists to America" - from Trump supporters - makes me wonder how many hold an even more misguided view than that.

It is a problem, I said so in my post. My only issue with your post was that you were attributing responsibility to him on a grander scale, when he's very clearly taking advantage of current events rather than creating them. It's an important distinction, because the latter downplays blame on those who are actually responsible, and that's dangerous.

I've made it clear that I don't believe either major candidate is fit to be president, so you won't see me disagreeing with you on the subject of Trump overall.

Edit: and you're free to PM me if you want to talk about something you might not be comfortable saying in SD lol!

Edited August 31, 2016 by Tangerine

[Lord Raven]

I'll respond later but it wasn't about comfort, it was about not being factually incorrect which is much more annoying to check on mobile because mobile blows.

EDIT: I think you are correct on the first one, I just can't logically get it out of my head that Trump's informality and mannerisms made it just vague enough to absolve himself of responsibility, but just enough to send a message to some of his supporters. I think there's like a one in a billion chance anyone is motivated by that to shoot Hillary, but it's insane to not watch the shit you say.

The other difference I've found between Biden/Hillary and Trump is that Trump is generally venomous and antagonistic towards Hillary whereas Biden/Hillary were significantly less so towards Obama. That really amps up any antagonistic interpretation of his wording, which is why many people find it much more inappropriate than the former, because while Hillary was running against Obama it wasn't with the same vitriol as Trump against Hillary. Having that said, I haven't really found the source where Trump clarified, but if you can find the source and show me that would absolve me of all suspicions. (Actually, the closest I've found is him not acknowledging that there's other ways to interpret his wording there).

It is a problem, I said so in my post. My only issue with your post was that you were attributing responsibility to him on a grander scale, when he's very clearly taking advantage of current events rather than creating them. It's an important distinction, because the latter downplays blame on those who are actually responsible, and that's dangerous.

I wasn't saying it started with Trump either, I'm just saying Trump will possibly (and honestly probably already has) vindicate this mentality, which seems like a real enough possibility given his complete lack of tact and his propensity towards bigotry and blame rather than coming up with solutions. That's what freaks me out about this election. He's encouraging the anti-PC crowd to speak out in favor of racism, he's exacerbated the rise of the alt-right, and he hasn't at all shaken off endorsements from the KKK. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

In fact that's why it does and doesn't confuse me that Trump has supporters - it's easier to rally people towards blame than it is in favor of an actual policy/solution, even if said policy/solution requires compromise.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Lord Raven

[-Cynthia-]

@ Cynthia:

1) Obama's also praised the Australian buyback program. I'm pretty sure that if he could, he would have passed laws like that after blaming San Bernadino and Orlando on "gun violence" rather than a terrorist attack by radical Islam.

What does your speculation about what Obama would have done have to do with Hillary Clinton's stance on gun control?

2) Flying on an airplane is not a fundamental human right. Self preservation is. So yes, the no fly list should not have any bearing on buying a gun or not.

Gun ownership is already restricted for a number of individuals (certain varieties of criminals, minors etc.) So the 'fundamental human right' obviously has some leeway.

3) OK, this one is annoying.

You cannot legally buy a firearm without a background check. There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. Private sellers must conduct background checks.

This is law. Stop saying "no, it doesn't happen". Anyone who has bought a gun legally will be able to point out that these claims are false.

The U.S. does not have universal background checks for all states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_background_check

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/14/us/universal-background-checks/

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html

Show me something that says that the US has universal background checks in all states, not shit like 'well anyone's who's bought a gun would know".

Suicide is going to happen no matter what. If someone jumps in front of a train, do we blame the train? If someone ODs on drugs, do we jump down phamasuedicals throats?

Suicide is bad. Nobody is saying that it isn't. But background checks do not exist to ward off suicide. They exist to ward off threats to other people.

So instead of actually addressing the study, you're just going to have baseless statements? Ok then.

Probably my last post on this.

Edited August 31, 2016 by -Cynthia-

[Tangerine]

I'll respond later but it wasn't about comfort, it was about not being factually incorrect which is much more annoying to check on mobile because mobile blows.

EDIT: I think you are correct on the first one, I just can't logically get it out of my head that Trump's informality and mannerisms made it just vague enough to absolve himself of responsibility, but just enough to send a message to some of his supporters. I think there's like a one in a billion chance anyone is motivated by that to shoot Hillary, but it's insane to not watch the shit you say.

The other difference I've found between Biden/Hillary and Trump is that Trump is generally venomous and antagonistic towards Hillary whereas Biden/Hillary were significantly less so towards Obama. That really amps up any antagonistic interpretation of his wording, which is why many people find it much more inappropriate than the former, because while Hillary was running against Obama it wasn't with the same vitriol as Trump against Hillary. Having that said, I haven't really found the source where Trump clarified, but if you can find the source and show me that would absolve me of all suspicions. (Actually, the closest I've found is him not acknowledging that there's other ways to interpret his wording there).

In the interview you're talking about where he said there could be no other interpretation, he clarified multiple times that he was talking about a political movement.

As for Trump and his wording, I think you've just not recognized what his strategy is in regards to dealing with the biased media. He's dominating the press because he purposely muddies his own statements, knowing full well that they are going to go to town spinning whatever he says - that's what he WANTS them to do. It draws attention to the things he's saying and reinforces the narrative that the media is biased against him, which has unfortunately been one of his greatest strengths. If the media were practicing balanced reporting, it's hard to believe we'd be seeing such fervent support for Trump; what they're doing is only strengthening the position he's taken as the anti-establishment candidate.

The media is allowing him to run one of the cheapest presidential campaigns in modern politics. Who needs to pay for TV spots when you can say something ambiguous and get millions in free advertising because you're Donald Trump? It's ridiculous.

I wasn't saying it started with Trump either, I'm just saying Trump will possibly (and honestly probably already has) vindicate this mentality, which seems like a real enough possibility given his complete lack of tact and his propensity towards bigotry and blame rather than coming up with solutions. That's what freaks me out about this election. He's encouraging the anti-PC crowd to speak out in favor of racism, he's exacerbated the rise of the alt-right, and he hasn't at all shaken off endorsements from the KKK. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

In fact that's why it does and doesn't confuse me that Trump has supporters - it's easier to rally people towards blame than it is in favor of an actual policy/solution, even if said policy/solution requires compromise.

Well, no, he did disavow the KKK.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/donald-trump-disavows-david-duke-kkk/

The KKK also endorsed and donated to Hillary Clinton (who also disavowed), but that was much less widely reported on. It's just another non-story.

I agree with the rest, what he's doing is more likely than not to make tensions (or in the worst case scenario, escalate) worse if it were to continue in the event that he's elected. We're dealing with danger on both sides either way; Clinton isn't a vote for safety, she's potentially as scary as him in other ways. It's not a comforting election regardless of what happens.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Tangerine

[CyborgZeta]

So much for Trump's flip-flop on immigration.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

So much for Trump's flip-flop on immigration.

that speech was amazing, it sounded like a doubling down on the immigration issue.

And this is after he flew to Mexico on short notice to talk with its president and give a speech down there, you won't see Hillary having the stamina for this double duty.

Edited September 1, 2016 by HF Makalov Fanboy Kai

[Lord Raven]

In the interview you're talking about where he said there could be no other interpretation, he clarified multiple times that he was talking about a political movement.

I'm very well aware that's what that line was referring to, but the denial of "it can't be taken any other way" is what I'm referring to.

As for Trump and his wording, I think you've just not recognized what his strategy is in regards to dealing with the biased media. He's dominating the press because he purposely muddies his own statements, knowing full well that they are going to go to town spinning whatever he says - that's what he WANTS them to do. It draws attention to the things he's saying and reinforces the narrative that the media is biased against him, which has unfortunately been one of his greatest strengths. If the media were practicing balanced reporting, it's hard to believe we'd be seeing such fervent support for Trump; what they're doing is only strengthening the position he's taken as the anti-establishment candidate.

The media is allowing him to run one of the cheapest presidential campaigns in modern politics. Who needs to pay for TV spots when you can say something ambiguous and get millions in free advertising because you're Donald Trump? It's ridiculous.

I know this is his strategy, and it's infuriating that people are attracted to vitriol. There was a thread on SF a while back on "can you convince people to hate something?" and I immediately think of shit like this and I figured the answer was "absolutely and it's much easier than getting someone to like something."

I agree with the rest, what he's doing is more likely than not to make tensions (or in the worst case scenario, escalate) worse if it were to continue in the event that he's elected. We're dealing with danger on both sides either way; Clinton isn't a vote for safety, she's potentially as scary as him in other ways. It's not a comforting election regardless of what happens.

This is what I don't understand, because from my understanding Hillary is a vote for effectively at least 4 more years of Obama. I don't see how Hillary is dangerous (at least from a domestic standpoint), because I don't see it as any more than a continuation of the Obama years, of course Congress pending. Could you expand on this?

I mean, my thing about Hillary is that she's a better candidate than Trump on the grounds of the fact that she has significant experience in politics, her rhetoric isn't divisive as hell, and she has some actual sense of policy mapped out where Trump is just talking out of his ass. I almost feel like we're going to get exactly what we expect from Hillary, whereas Donald Trump is Pandora's Box that I'm waiting to come out and say "punk'd" at any given moment. On top of that, their vice presidential candidates are leagues apart. Tim Kaine is relatively liberal whereas Mike Pence is... virtually the polar opposite. Trump has very little experience with legislation, Pence has experience (but none of his bills became law) but he is pretty much socially ultraconservative and opposed things like increasing the minimum wage, expanded healthcare, planned parenthood, and he even said shit like "smoking does not kill but it's not good for you." Also denies stuff like evolution and global warming. (Though the last republican who believed in both was John McCain).

Edited September 2, 2016 by Lord Raven

[-Cynthia-]

that speech was amazing, it sounded like a doubling down on the immigration issue.

And this is after he flew to Mexico on short notice to talk with its president and give a speech down there, you won't see Hillary having the stamina for this double duty.

Ah yes, Trump's negotiations. Where he allegedly didn't even mention the wall payment while in Mexico?

Trump himself had a different take. “We did discuss the wall,” he said. “We didn’t discuss payment of the wall. That will be for a later date. This was a very preliminary meeting. I think it was an excellent meeting.”

Back in Arizona he says: “And Mexico will pay for the wall. 100%. They don’t know it yet, but they’re going to pay for it.”

Nieto's statement on Mexico paying for a wall: “I made it clear that Mexico will not pay for the wall,” the president said bluntly.

Donald Trump is a master negotiator, believe him.

Edited September 2, 2016 by -Cynthia-

[Tryhard]

Even disregarding the above post, he's already shown that he has flip flopped on the issue and others, and Trump's thing is to take all possible stances on a topic at the same time. How can you have any confidence in that policy when he is not consistent about it?

Edited September 2, 2016 by Tryhard

[tuvarkz]

Ah yes, Trump's negotiations. Where he allegedly didn't even mention the wall payment while in Mexico?

Trump himself had a different take. “We did discuss the wall,” he said. “We didn’t discuss payment of the wall. That will be for a later date. This was a very preliminary meeting. I think it was an excellent meeting.”

Back in Arizona he says: “And Mexico will pay for the wall. 100%. They don’t know it yet, but they’re going to pay for it.”

Nieto's statement on Mexico paying for a wall: “I made it clear that Mexico will not pay for the wall,” the president said bluntly.

Donald Trump is a master negotiator, believe him.

Trump has already said before that the payment for the wall is going to be through increase in import taxes and through increases in the prices of visas for mexicans amongst other stuff. It might not be direct payment, but they are still paying for that wall.

[Life]

Ah yes, Trump's negotiations. Where he allegedly didn't even mention the wall payment while in Mexico?

Trump himself had a different take. We did discuss the wall, he said. We didnt discuss payment of the wall. That will be for a later date. This was a very preliminary meeting. I think it was an excellent meeting.

Back in Arizona he says: And Mexico will pay for the wall. 100%. They dont know it yet, but theyre going to pay for it.

Nieto's statement on Mexico paying for a wall: I made it clear that Mexico will not pay for the wall, the president said bluntly.

Donald Trump is a master negotiator, believe him.

1% tax on trade to start with.

USA could cripple Mexico with tarriffs and gain the money that way.

[Moblin Major General]

1% tax on trade to start with.

USA could cripple Mexico with tarriffs and gain the money that way.

I thought NAFTA outlawed tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico? I mean, NAFTA probably should go away, but will it?

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

I thought NAFTA outlawed tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico? I mean, NAFTA probably should go away, but will it?

i hope it does, i lost my manufacturing dream job over it.

[Life]

I thought NAFTA outlawed tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico? I mean, NAFTA probably should go away, but will it?

I get the feeling that Trump wants to end NAFTA which wouldn't hurt the USA too much and do a lot more damage to nations like Mexico or Panama in terms of trade.

It's a good Trump card to have in order to secure a strong nation.

[Moblin Major General]

It's a good Trump card to have in order to secure a strong nation.

It only hurts when I laugh.