Trump suggests Mexican president should cancel meeting if he won't pay for wall - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Donald Trump has suggested that Mexico's president should cancel a planned visit to Washington if Mexico refuses to pay for the border wall. It comes after Enrique Pena Nieto again rebuffed Mr Trump's assertion that Mexico would end up funding the wall. The Mexican president made no mention of changing their 31 January meeting. President Trump has signed an executive order for an "impassable physical barrier" and insisted Mexico will reimburse the US. He responded to President Pena Nieto's statement by saying his counterpart should cancel the trip. Writing on Twitter, Mr Trump suggested Mexico owed the US for the impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). "The US has a 60 billion dollar trade deficit with Mexico. It has been a one-sided deal from the beginning of NAFTA with massive numbers of jobs and companies lost," he wrote. "If Mexico is unwilling to pay for the badly needed wall, then it would be better to cancel the upcoming meeting." Earlier Mr Pena Nieto said he "lamented" the plans for the barrier.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38761384[/url]

Imagine not meeting a foreign leader because they wont pay for your project that they have no reason to pay for.

And what happens when Enrique shows up to have actual discussions? Will Trump stubbornly lock the door and play loud metal while he broods in the oval office until his personal chef lets him know that his Tuesday-night macaroni & cheese is ready?

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51729947]Imagine not meeting a foreign leader because they wont pay for your project that they have no reason to pay for.[/QUOTE] Did you even read the article? Trump's using the trade agreement that's lost America 60 billion dollars as a bargaining chip to see if Mexico will either pay for the wall or let the poor starve with money the upper class would never be willing to part with. While I won't flaunt the legitimacy of how much money was lost from the trade agreement with Mexico as all I know about it comes from trump tweets and people reacting to trump tweets, it's still a bit more than what you're implying. To be fair I won't blame you if you didn't, the article reads like slightly better written clickbait. There's no sources for either side of the argument, it just sort of states that Trump made two posts on twitter and the rest is filler with slight trivia about how many border patrol officers he's hired and the like.

Considering that Trump doesn't even care about the analysis done concerning the consequences of America leaving NAFTA he's in no position to be pointing any fingers, because whenever he does, he misses the forest for the trees. 31000 jobs will be gone from the auto industry alone, to say nothing of the billions lost in money, and the large numbers of jobs from other industries as well.

[QUOTE=minilandstan;51729970]Did you even read the article? Trump's using the trade agreement that's lost America 60 billion dollars as a bargaining chip to see if Mexico will either pay for the wall or let the poor starve with money the upper class would never be willing to part with. While I won't flaunt the legitimacy of how much money was lost from the trade agreement with Mexico as all I know about it comes from trump tweets and people reacting to trump tweets, it's still a bit more than what you're implying.[/QUOTE] Its also a trade deal thats created quite a number of American jobs and Mexico is America's thid biggest trade partnership. He wants to get rid of this. So that he can pay for a wall that will cost the Americans millions. Mexico owes them nothing. Edit; yes I did read the article. The words came from the horses mouth. Didnt you hear? You xan trust anything that comes out of Trumps mouth. Apparently.

Okay. So what Mexico will want to do in a first strike is seize control of the Sierra Army Depot. Then, taking control of the rail network, they'll want to progressively use the captured materiel in an invasion of the American agricultural core.

[QUOTE=minilandstan;51729970] To be fair I won't blame you if you didn't, the article reads like slightly better written clickbait. There's no sources for either side of the argument, it just sort of states that Trump made two posts on twitter and the rest is filler with slight trivia about how many border patrol officers he's hired and the like.[/QUOTE] "The BBC is slightly better written clickbait" holy fuck The article is about Trump saying the Mexican president should cancel his trip. The article references Trump's direct response on Twitter to the Mexican president saying he won't pay (the video of which is in the article).

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51729994]Its also a trade deal thats created quite a number of American jobs and Mexico is America's thid biggest trade partnership. He wants to get rid of this. So that he can pay for a wall that will cost the Americans millions. Mexico owes them nothing. Edit; yes I did read the article. The words came from the horses mouth. Didnt you hear? You xan trust anything that comes out of Trumps mouth. Apparently.[/QUOTE] Did you ignore the large part of my post where I said outright that because there's no sources or linked facts to the BBC page, I wouldn't flaunt around the legitimacy of his claims? You have eyes, read. It's a pretty decent political move though, it's going to force their country into a corner. They either lose even more support from their lower class, or they are forced to pay for a project that doesn't really benefit them. It's a bold move to be certain, and honestly I'm intrigued to see how well he's been keeping up with his campaign promises after a long few years of nothing from the other administrations. [QUOTE=MissZoey;51730075]"The BBC is slightly better written clickbait" holy fuck The article is about Trump saying the Mexican president should cancel his trip. The article references Trump's direct response on Twitter to the Mexican president saying he won't pay (the video of which is in the article).[/QUOTE] The entire article is a long-winded post about two twitter posts, it's the most benign thing to write about. They could at least put in more effort to either discriminate or legitimize his claims, or both if they were trying to be neutral, but the article does nothing of the sort. It just shows that he made two twitter posts and that's that. It doesn't feel like news, just reactionary fluff.

Maybe you could search around and find the tweets exist: [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/824615820391305216?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/824616644370714627?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw[/media] This is not a bold political move. This is shitposting on Twitter. Trump is a fucking embarrassment.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51730105]Maybe you could search around and find the tweets exist: This is not a bold political move. This is shitposting on Twitter. Trump is a fucking embarrassment.[/QUOTE] I already knew the tweets exist, all the news does now days is have a 24/7 stream of reactionary posts about whatever he tweets about. And I fail to see how it's not bold. If you want to see how far he's keeping up with his campaign promises, there's a page on CNN's website dedicated to it. If nothing else it's a rather neutral outlook on the whole ordeal. Also could you calm down a little, I swear nobody can even discuss anything political on this website. I just want a simple, rational discussion. Is that too much to ask? Edit: Here's the page I was referring to if you want to check it out [url]http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/politics/tracking-trumps-promises/[/url]

[media]http://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/824661013693919233[/media]

[QUOTE=minilandstan;51730118]I already knew the tweets exist, all the news does now days is have a 24/7 stream of reactionary posts about whatever he tweets about. And I fail to see how it's not bold. If you want to see how far he's keeping up with his campaign promises, there's a page on CNN's website dedicated to it. If nothing else it's a rather neutral outlook on the whole ordeal. Also could you calm down a little, I swear nobody can even discuss anything political on this website. I just want a simple, rational discussion. Is that too much to ask? Edit: Here's the page I was referring to if you want to check it out [url]http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/politics/tracking-trumps-promises/[/url][/QUOTE] Frankly I'm surprised you're being calm considering your national leader thinks its wise to dictate policy over Twitter. Second, you said "did you even read the article?" It sounded to me like you didn't want a rational discussion. Especially since you first at said "oh the BBC are posting clickbait" in the full knowledge that the Tweets exist. Third, I don't care about his promises. I know he promised this. It doesn't make what he's doing in anyway smart. And finally, thinking I'm incredibly mad because I cursed on an internet forum is a terrible assumption to make.

[QUOTE=minilandstan;51730118]I already knew the tweets exist, all the news does now days is have a 24/7 stream of reactionary posts about whatever he tweets about. And I fail to see how it's not bold. If you want to see how far he's keeping up with his campaign promises, there's a page on CNN's website dedicated to it. If nothing else it's a rather neutral outlook on the whole ordeal. Also could you calm down a little, I swear nobody can even discuss anything political on this website. I just want a simple, rational discussion. Is that too much to ask? Edit: Here's the page I was referring to if you want to check it out [url]http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/politics/tracking-trumps-promises/[/url][/QUOTE] You want a rational conversation but you're trying to justify a 25+ billion dollar wall (with absurd maintainence) and the destruction of otherwise decent relations with one of our largest trade partners. Bold ≠ a good idea. BTW, that's not the correct way to use the word "reactionary".

[QUOTE=benzi2k7;51730125][media]http://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/824661013693919233[/media][/QUOTE] Not even five days in and Mexican-American relations are going off a cliff, holy crap. This is why you don't allow leaders of nation states the ability to get all emotional over social media. It leads to things like that.

[QUOTE=minilandstan;51730083]It's a pretty decent political move though, it's going to force their country into a corner. They either lose even more support from their lower class, or they are forced to pay for a project that doesn't really benefit them. It's a bold move to be certain, and honestly I'm intrigued to see how well he's been keeping up with his campaign promises after a long few years of nothing from the other administrations.[/QUOTE] Do you listen to yourself? How does this benefit Mexico in any way?

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51729947]Imagine not meeting a foreign leader because they wont pay for your project that they have no reason to pay for.[/QUOTE] It's because of Mexico's negligence that we have millions of illegal immigrants leaching on government money. Their shithole of a country needs to take responsibility for their citizens.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;51730172]Do you listen to yourself? How does this benefit Mexico in any way?[/QUOTE] If it benefits America and America alone, they don't care, considering I was told yesterday how much faith one Trump supporter had about things working exactly as their emperor planned. It doesn't matter to them what happens to the other country, as long as America gets theirs, in their view.

[QUOTE=benzi2k7;51730125][media]http://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/824661013693919233[/media][/QUOTE] Hell yeah boys open ur pocket books we don't need Mexico WE PAYING FOR THE WALL OURSELVES yeeee I'm giving up Nascar tickets for 2 months to pay for this God bless the USA

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51730141]Frankly I'm surprised you're being calm considering your national leader thinks its wise to dictate policy over Twitter. Second, you said "did you even read the article?" It sounded to me like you didn't want a rational discussion. Especially since you first at said "oh the BBC are posting clickbait" in the full knowledge that the Tweets exist. Third, I don't care about his promises. I know he promised this. It doesn't make what he's doing in anyway smart. And finally, thinking I'm incredibly mad because I cursed on an internet forum is a terrible assumption to make.[/QUOTE] Well you do have a rather aggressive tone about everything, and this isn't the only time you've been this way. For claiming I'm incredibly calm when discussing matters about my own leader, you seem to be incredibly agitated for discussing matters involving countries that aren't yours. I'm not going to say you can't hold an opinion, I'm just trying to be neutral here. It's not too much to ask for a calm discussion about something neither of us really have any hand in. Also I fail to see how Trump's tweets existing points any illegitimacy towards my claims towards the BBC's quality. It really is just a fluff piece that exists to point out two tweets of his, there's no substance to go off of because it is really just another article discussing two tweets about the potential future of foreign policy. They could have put in more effort to make the article worth posting / reading. [QUOTE=KillerJaguar;51730172]Do you listen to yourself? How does this benefit Mexico in any way?[/QUOTE] I never said it would benefit Mexico in any way, in fact my post blatantly states the opposite. :v:

His staff should take his phone off him.

[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;51730178]It's because of Mexico's negligence that we have millions of illegal immigrants leaching on government money. Their shithole of a country needs to take responsibility for their citizens.[/QUOTE] And you think crucifying their economy through forcing them to pay through sanctions will help them? After all, America has such a good track record of helping South American countries and not making the situation actively worse for their citizens, right? I like how you said "leaching on government money" when [URL="http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-thorny-economics-of-illegal-immigration-1454984443"]it's possible their economic burden could be a net positive or a small net loss.[/URL]

[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;51730178]It's because of Mexico's negligence that we have millions of illegal immigrants leaching on government money. Their shithole of a country needs to take responsibility for their citizens.[/QUOTE] Good thinking! Mexico is clearly unstable and wrought with problems on purpose. Maybe Trump could pass along some of his economic wisdom - people wouldn't have to leave their country to make ends. Economic sanctions are going to do great things for Mexico!

[QUOTE=minilandstan;51730190]Well you do have a rather aggressive tone about everything, and this isn't the only time you've been this way. For claiming I'm incredibly calm when discussing matters about my own leader, you seem to be incredibly agitated for discussing matters involving countries that aren't yours. I'm not going to say you can't hold an opinion, I'm just trying to be neutral here. It's not too much to ask for a calm discussion about something neither of us really have any hand in.[/QUOTE] Unless I'm mistaken we've never talked on anything, so I don't think you have the right to call me out on my 'tone'. Especially since many others have posted much, much worse than I have. I'd actually like you to post these examples as well. I know they exist but well, you can't just make a claim like that without posting sources, right? And yes, I'm agitated about matters that potentially involve people I know in the country they live. I'm scared of the effect Trump will have on the world, and on Ireland in particular. American matters don't just affect America - after all, this matter is about an international meeting Trump has just ended over Twitter. I am calm. I'm ready to have a calm and rational discussion. But we're getting off topic. Whether the piece is fluff or not is irrelevant; it's an important story. So of course BBC are going to make an article about it, and for *the benefit of people who haven't read other articles*, are going to include other important information. After all, not everyone pays the most attention to the news.

[QUOTE=minilandstan;51730190]Also I fail to see how Trump's tweets existing points any illegitimacy towards my claims towards the BBC's quality. It really is just a fluff piece that exists to point out two tweets of his, there's no substance to go off of because it is really just another article discussing two tweets about the potential future of foreign policy. They could have put in more effort to make the article worth posting / reading.[/QUOTE]it's the president of the united states, it's sort of important if he's making random foreign policy statements over twitter hence they report on it. they gave context for his comments, they gave context for nieto's comments, they gave context for the wall, context for the immigration debate.. don't really see your problem with it.

[QUOTE=minilandstan;51730190]Well you do have a rather aggressive tone about everything, and this isn't the only time you've been this way. For claiming I'm incredibly calm when discussing matters about my own leader, you seem to be incredibly agitated for discussing matters involving countries that aren't yours. I'm not going to say you can't hold an opinion, I'm just trying to be neutral here. It's not too much to ask for a calm discussion about something neither of us really have any hand in.[/quote] I don't think you're entirely genuine. [quote]Also I fail to see how Trump's tweets existing points any illegitimacy towards my claims towards the BBC's quality. It really is just a fluff piece that exists to point out two tweets of his, there's no substance to go off of because it is really just another article discussing two tweets about the potential future of foreign policy. They could have put in more effort to make the article worth posting / reading.[/quote] When the pres makes the president twitter equivalent of "We'll if you don't want to play by my rules don't bother coming over!" it's article worthy. The BBC article is about said immature tweet.

[QUOTE=benzi2k7;51730125][media]http://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/824661013693919233[/media][/QUOTE] Did he really just bully another country out of a diplomatic meeting? Or maybe they realize that nothing they say will get through to him. Either way, Jesus Christ he really is a giant child.

[QUOTE=minilandstan;51730190]I never said it would benefit Mexico in any way, in fact my post blatantly states the opposite. :v:[/QUOTE] Then why the hell should Mexico pay for something that would only hurt them? Do you ever consider looking at things from the other side?

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51730222]Unless I'm mistaken we've never talked on anything, so I don't think you have the right to call me out on my 'tone'. Especially since many others have posted much, much worse than I have. I'd actually like you to post these examples as well. I know they exist but well, you can't just make a claim like that without posting sources, right? And yes, I'm agitated about matters that potentially involve people I know in the country they live. I'm scared of the effect Trump will have on the world, and on Ireland in particular. American matters don't just affect America - after all, this matter is about an international meeting Trump has just ended over Twitter. I am calm. I'm ready to have a calm and rational discussion. But we're getting off topic. Whether the piece is fluff or not is irrelevant; it's an important story. So of course BBC are going to make an article about it, and for *the benefit of people who haven't read other articles*, are going to include other important information. After all, not everyone pays the most attention to the news.[/QUOTE] I understand that it is relevant news if it involves the future political trade regulations between two nations, it just felt rather poorly exercised. It would have been nice if they cited sources such as [url]http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/naftas-impact-u-s-economy-facts/[/url] that shows that while America has found itself nearly 150 billion dollars richer each year due to the trade agreement between it, Mexico, and Canada, it has also lost nearly 600,000 jobs because of it. It would put an interesting perspective on the cost of jobs in the United States, or at least what the cost would be to get them back. A hundred and twenty seven billion dollars is a lot of money, but it's on a yearly basis, and it's pocket change in how much money comes and goes each year. The discussion should be "Can we afford to lose that in order to potentially regain employment opportunities in the United States" [QUOTE=KillerJaguar;51730229]Then why the hell should Mexico pay for something that would only hurt them? Do you ever consider looking at things from the other side?[/QUOTE] Aye, but that isn't what you were stating, was it? Despite your argument going from "How can you say this benefits Mexico?!" to "How can you support something that doesn't benefit Mexico?!", I suppose I should be honest and state that I care more about the future of my own country, rather than the future of another. While I wish that there was a better way for both countries, Mexico clearly has built itself upon a foundation of sand, and should have prepared for a situation like this by supporting the lower classes. Their failures as a country are forcing people to seek out better lives in ours, they clearly have issues that need fixing, and I'm hoping actions like these will force them to re-evaluate their situation with the lower classes.

Is it conspiracy territory to say that maybe Trump wants Mexico to become even more unstable and dangerous? Because I mean, all his actions seem to be pointing to not giving a single shit about that stuff. Not to imply that he wants to annex Mexico or anything because that's absurd, but his platform definitely benefits from making Mexico worse, directly or indirectly. It would give him proof that he was "right" to build that wall. "look at all that danger that our wall protects us from, see how bad Mexico really is? All that crime and revolution? You can lick the sweat from my tiny gold leafed balls now, yes."