I don’t know if we have enough threads on the WALL yet. I do know that each such thread should have a link to this amazing revelation:
Haha. Perfect analogy.
Well, it’s guess work, but my impression is that he actually tried. Not very hard, but he tried. Apparently he had figured that he could take care of most of his todo list by writing executive orders which he started doing his first week in office. When you surround yourself with incompetent yesmen, you might actually believe this will get you somewhere.
So after throwing a hissy-fit over the boundaries of executive power, he went on and played golf and started focusing again on his core business; Trump Inc. Most of the money is now coming in through his golf resorts, which are permanently booked either by himself and half his administration or by foreign special interest groups.
Apparently China believes they don’t have to do what Saudi Arabia does (pump millions in Mar-a-lago) and where the second gets away with murder (bazinga!), the first gets hammered with a trade war that hurts us more than them but who cares?
So if we have a president who is willing to hurt a relationship with our biggest trade partner because they “don’t grease the wheels”, what is his true motivation for hurting his own country (shutdown) just to realize a campaign promise of which every rational person knows it has no value or effect?
Trump has zero interest in fulfilling his campaign promise that Mexico was going to fund a wall. He went straight for the pocketbooks of American citizens when, 2 years into his term, he realized that he hadn’t yet done jack shit about that wall he promised to his marks.
To get re-elected, and to perpetuate that 35-40% of support. He’s putting on an act for them. He thinks it makes himself look “tough” and decisive–Jesus, you’ve seen The Apprentice, right? For him, this is all just a continuation of that bullshit show. That’s really all he knows how to do, and he’s desperate now. He doesn’t care that it’s hurting the country.
Actually…no. I never could stomach the guy. 
The “Exxon deal”. The deal that Putin wanted above all else. You will recall, billions of gallons of Arctic oil that Russian could not afford to exploit without help, the deal that made Rex Tillerson the very favorite American evah! The deal that would bring a huge wave of money into Russia’s coffers, until oopsy-daisy, the Magnitsky Act, the sanctions.
Russia is an economic basket case, a population that lives on vodka and apathy. Putin and his droogies done stole everything that wasn’t nailed down or could be pried loose. Add to that, Putin’s visceral hatred of Hillary, for her support for the Russian dissident movement. Were there any suggestions from candidate Trump or President Trump that maybe those sanctions on Russia were not that great an idea? Seems I recall there were a few.
Christ, what an imagination I’ve got.
Wrong thread, 'luci?
Hey, septimus, thanks for fleshing this out. In hindsight, I should have done it myself.
The whole provenance of Trump’s Wall is surreal. Not drunk history; more like Drunk Kafka.
A mnemonic device is created because his advisers can’t rely on him to remember to bash immigration, but can get him to remember “Build a wall.” He thinks it’s kind of stupid, but it ends up getting a positive response at rallies. So now Trump’s Wall is an applause line.
Let that sink in a minute. $5 billion (wait, no, it’s $5.6 billion. Did I say $5.6 billion? I meant $5.7 billion) for a mnemonic-device-turned-applause-line.
So now applause line becomes campaign promise, and the applause gets louder. And then Trump gets elected, so the campaign-turned-administration now has to back-fill some sort of rationale on to this campaign promise, so the story of invading hordes of terrorists, drug mules, human traffickers, mothers, children, and infants streaming across the border is borne.
Okay, skip all that for now. Here’s the $5.7 billion. What is the Administration going to do with it? Trump has said that he wants a concrete wall along the entire length of the border (no, wait, it’s steel slat fence except it’s not a fence, it’s a Wall. But if we tell the Democrats it’s a fence, maybe they’ll think we’re compromising on the Wall).
Anyway, $5.7 billion isn’t going to make it from sea to shining sea, so what is Trump going to do with it? Well, it’s only for 326 or 248 or whatever miles of fence.
Oh, okay, so it’s more of a prototype build, then. Okay, where is Trump building it? Have locations been scouted? Have environmental and economic impact studies been performed? Are there any property rights issues? Have these potential locations been surveyed? Has a fence design (oh, crap - Wall design) been considered, reviewed, approved? By whom?
No? So what Trump is really asking for is $5.7 billion dumped in some sort of fund, to be distributed at the Administration’s whim? A Wall Blank Check?
And now we have his supporters, shoveling like mad, attempting to provide some sort of cover for this absolutely absurd mnemonic-device-turned-applause-line-turned-campaign-promise-turned-government-priority. How is this idea being treated with anything but mockery?
Trump has shut down the government over this ephemeral quest, this absurdity borne of delusion. The Emperor has no clothes.
I knew over a decade ago that that ridiculous “Freedom Fence” would lead to demands for a wall. Don’t promise the yokels that you can use carpentry to keep the aliens out. It’s nonsense, and it hurts real persons’ lives.
Quinnapiac poll came out today. Some tidbits:
Did Trump’s recent televised address to the nation change your mind about building a wall along the border with Mexico, or not?
Yes: 2%
No: 89%
Who do you trust more on border security?
Dems 49
Trump 44
Would you support funding border security without wall?
Support 61
Oppose 32
Who do you blame for shutdown?
Trump/Rs 56
Dems 36
Ahem. Canada is the largest trading partner of the US. But not to worry, Trump has labeled Canada a “security threat” in order to justify steel and aluminum tariffs against us.
So he is in the process of ruining that long-standing trade relationship as well.
And Mitch McConnell and the rest of the traitorous sycophants are exclaiming about the lovely colour and the quality of the fabric.
Thanks for those poll numbers, JohnT. Pretty good (from a sane/facts-matter perspective). That hard floor of about 30% pure morons hasn’t changed in two-plus years.
The shutdown is part of the ongoing treason. It’s that simple.
Well, one of his big general all-encompassing promises was that “We Will Have So Much Winning If I Get Elected That You May Get Bored With Winning”.
It doesn’t seem to have worked out quite the way the “stable genius” was advertising:
SE Cupp: [Trump] has utterly and completely lost; this is what losing looks like.
And this is assuming that the great “winner” doesn’t get impeached and possibly jailed for collusion with Russia and obstruction of justice. Poisoning the political discourse with hateful racism and xenophobia and screwing pretty much all working people is just an added bonus of his regime.
[quote=“wolfpup, post:36, topic:827585”]
Well, one of his big general all-encompassing promises was that “We Will Have So Much Winning If I Get Elected That You May Get Bored With Winning”.
QUOTE]
In context please. I said he made an effort with a bunch of executive orders, then lost interest…or something to that extend.
I stand corrected.
To be honest, I have zero-knowledge of what these trade agreements exactly say or establish. In the UK the brexiteers also make a big deal about them, claiming they give the UK a disadvantage in their trade.
But aren’t they essentially all free-trade agreements? Meaning that they work both ways? If a country cannot survive without import tariffs, doesn’t it simply have not enough to offer?
“Mrs. Clinton”?
(She has clearly given the entire world permission to refer to her by her first name, but even if she had not, a figure of her stature could just be Clinton in context, or, if you must supply an honorific, how about Ms.?)
Maybe it’s because I work in Germany these days where even colleagues refer to each other as Mr. and Mrs. (although they always seem quite content to drop the formalities when they hear I’m not a native).
But yea, I think respectable leaders should not be referred to by their first name. In the case of Mrs. Clinton, I suspect it was a well-advised marketing decision to focus on her first name (and drop the maiden name which she used to carry), but still I think it’s demeaning.
You don’t hear people speak about president Donnie, do you? Yet *president Trump *(who I will refer to as such, even though I have little respect for the man) perpetually uses first names to address his opponents (e.g Hillary, “Chuck and Nancy”, etc.) as part of his belittlement strategies.
It’s hard enough to respect politicians as it is. I don’t want to pretend I’m close to any of them.