Trump Claims He Never Said Mexico Would LITERALLY Pay For The Wall
98 replies, posted
I know Facepunch hates Trump and even posting this might get me banned, but like pretty much everyone I know never thought Mexico was gonna pay for it and even back then in 2016 I thought it was obvious he meant Mexico would pay for it through lost trade.
this dude said obama literally founded ISIS and doubled down on it
Then they were fools because he literally meant Mexico would pay for it.
He spent some of his first hours in office literally begging the President of Mexico to pay for it.
The Word of Trump is merely parable and not meant to be taken literally (when it no longer becomes convenient to do so).
why would this ever get you banned, we let terrible posters stick around because of them harboring contrary opinions
When you aren't good at anything, not even when you do bad things
I mean seriously it's right there in the public record. No, it's not obvious that he meant through lost trade. In his own words the wall would be built with the cooperation and funding of the Mexican government. The billions of dollars it would cost would literally be provided by the Mexican government to pay for the wall and that notion is one of the only things he's been any kind of consistent about
You can best sum up why he's walking it back now with the narcissist's prayer
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it. (You are here)
And if I did...
You deserved it.
You seem to be under the impression that we all took Trump at his word that Mexico would pay for the wall and are now acting like we didn't already expect this from the beginning.
We knew from the start that Mexico paying, directly or indirectly, for the wall was absurd. Even the indirect path would require a significant level of tact and negotiating skill that Trump is sorely deficient of. If we just decide to "screw" Mexico in trade they can screw us right back. We all pointed this out and had Trump supporters snubbing us and decrying us as naysayers.
The problem we have is that Trump made several statements claiming the funding for the wall would be secured from Mexico, several times explicitly stating that it would definitely be a direct payment. He has been completely unable to provide a cohesive plan for how that's going to happen. Just more vague promises so he can kick the can down the road a little farther.
And now, unable to secure his funding through sheer incompetence, he sees fit to take it from the American taxpayer or from emergency funds, offering in return only more empty, unsubstantiated promises about how much better our country will be for it. We're calling bullshit, and instead of calling it with us Trump's cult is acting like this was the expected outcome from the beginning and the only outrage is coming from people who took his words literally.
No, in fact, we knew something like this was going to happen. We always knew. And only because it causes less cognitive dissonance for them to do so have Trump supporters retroactively moved their goalposts and begin projecting their literalism onto us.
It's 100% bad faith politics.
But then he would have to admit that he was wrong.
"It's an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year," the memo said.
Of course it was obvious he meant it would be paid through lost trade.
Just like how "I'll pay you 10$ for that sandwich" obviously means that I'll take the sandwich for free and then tell one of my friends to come and buy a sandwich.
I'm honestly at a loss for words trying to figure this out, like, my brain can't fathom what's being said here, I just don't even.
shit like this used to get people banned until this subforum got the fun little "both sides are valid" rule, which thankfully seems to have just resulted in the site's left-leaning user base baiting the right-leaning users in to saying things that will actually get them banned because it's extremely easy to do and very funny every time it happens
Even if the trade deal covers the cost of the Wall (which it doesn't), that's still ignoring the opportunity cost of not building a wall and pocketing the money from the trade deal. Either way the American public is still literally paying for it.
Oh, funny, because what I was hearing at the time basically boiled down to "he says it like it is", and actual, unironic calls to make Mexico fund the wall.
Trump has rarely has any solid plans for anything, just empty promises, a Twitter account he uses to decide or influence policy on a whim, and ramblings that the Trump crowd can interpret however they want.
People around you can rationalize "pay" as being more indirect means, because "pay" is a word that can be used in many ways.
People around me rationalized "pay" as being direct means because, uh... he literally talked about making Mexico pay. Oops.
If there's one thing I agree with you on, though? I don't doubt Trump would try to reduce trade with one of the U.S.'s closest trading partners, though. He's literally that dumb.
Trump: Says it like it is
Also Trump: Doesn't mean what he says
I'm not even a Trump supporter. I voted for Hillary in 2016. I just think it's so dishonest that so many against Trump have resorted to bottom of the barrel counter arguements instead of what actually matters. There are a million reasons to dislike Trump, but threads like these just give me two scoops and Dijon Mustard flashbacks.
the border wall, and mexico paying for it, were central promises of his campaign, repeated emphatically ad nauseum, and not superficial trite like the dijon mustard report. it's just a very unrealistic false equivalency, what can i say
The difference being that this entire thread's topic is him backpedaling on something he said, sort of. Instead of delegitimatizing the entire idea in the first place. I think these types of threads just distract from the fact that Trump is awful because of his core ideas. Not because of his inconsistencies, perceived ugliness, narcissism, or refusal to admit he was wrong. All I ever see in threads like these are comments attack Trump the person and not Trump the idea. I'm so afraid that if our president had a different last name nobody would care about any of the on goings of our government.
He's awful because of both? His narcissism and refusal to admit he was wrong are why the government is shut down for his stupid fucking wall right now in the first place.
But when you argue against Trump for being a narcisit or ugly those are ultimately your subjective opinion and don't convince Trump supporters, or anyone on the right or right leaning. Instead it just leads to those who disagree with you tuning out. As someone who is much farther left than the average on this site I recognize that the lack of right posts isn't because of conversion but because they just don't care what Facepunchers have to say. I suppose if all you are trying to do by calling out Trump for lying or having small hands is vent, then that's alright. I just don't think it stimulates conversation and has negative impacts elsewhere.
Trump being a Narcissist isn't a "Subjective Opinion". There has been countless evidence of Trump showing Narcissistic behavior and there's been numerous psychologists and therapists that have come out and explained that he has a Narcissist personality.
You can't psychoanalyze someone who isn't your patient. Unless a Trump goes to a psychologist to get himself formally diagnosed, then it is still just the opinion for several people. I don't disagree that he is a narcissist or that he does resemble a bloated orangutan, but these are just my opinions and don't matter at all. What matters is why each and every one of his ideas to "fix" the country/world are in fact wrong.
these are solid points but that was just about the weirdest path you could've taken to get to them
like helix said, you can care about both. trump is representative of a larger problem. people who think they can defeat him like a video game boss are wrong. but he is still a real individual in a real position, and should be held accountable as such. it's way easier for people to vilify a person rather than an idea, a movement, a corporation. i think our brains are just wired that way?
you worry that president jeb! bush, by virtue of not being on twitter at 3am, would not make the headlines. yes, there's a lack of political awareness in america. does vilification of trump in favor of talking "big problems" harm it? yes. but what if his status as an individual serve to make political understanding more relatable to the average, apolitical citizen? i.e. exemplifying the issues of a party through a person. if that's idealistic, i don't know, but it sure as FUCK seems like opposition to trump has fired up people's political interest, in more than just himself
But you mentioned you voted for Hillary.
...yet you constantly shat on Hillary throughout your post history. While constantly saying false positive of Trump under the guise of "I don't even like Trump guys".
You literally just lied up above, which means we will all now perceive all your communications as absolute bullshit.
But that's funny, because that reminds me of a certain president.
I dislike Hillary but I don't like Trump either? The phrase lesser of two evils exists for a reason. Both candidates wanted to continue the killing of thousands in Yemen and Syria. Both candidates were against single payer health care. Both candidates have had a negative history with minorities and lgbtq communities.
If you don't like Trump. Why hasn't there been a post in your entire post history in where you criticize him? Cause most of your posts are "Come on guys you're way too hard on Trump" or "I don't like Trump as much as the next guy, but a lot of people says he's a great president and will fix the economy and supports gay rights and etc."
You're indirectly saying Trump is great without actually saying he's great.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.