So he's doing a Dennis Reynolds thing and suggesting that Mexico will do what we want because of "the implication"
US Aid to Mexico in 2013 was $560.6 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_aid_recipients Some estimates place that building the wall will cost $25 billion. Besides that Trump is threatening war with an ally and one of our largest trading partners. How much is that going to cost in money and lives? Other than playing devils advocate I don't see how Trump's comments can be defended as realistic or even rational.
I meant Republicans with viable political careers (Christine's ends after this term in NJ). I was just workshopping a joke for my open mic set at the new Wahlburgers in Baytown.
This is the problem with Trump: he answers questions in the context that they are given. Their interviewer asked if he would use military force, so he responded to the question. Probably upset quite a few people.
I disagree with his antics but bottom line is he is the only one talking about securing the border from illegal drugs (one of my biggest concerns). If a wall made drugs so much more expensive so young folks and poor folk could no longer afford to use and get caught and put in our overcrowded prisons or worse get addicted. how is that a bad thing?
Will the wall go deep underground to stop tunnels? And will it also be equipped with anti aircraft missiles?
Last thing I want to do is go to bat for Trump, but it seems like people are willfully misconstruing him. He's telling Woodward the Mexicans would 'pay' because he would reduce subsidies to Mexico. Woodward is misunderstanding him. Now, whether we give Mexico $10B/year in subsidies in the first place is a valid question. But, if we did, then stopping those payments and redirecting the money to wall maintenance would be easy. Probably inadvisable, but easy. He didn't threaten Mexico. Woodward asks about going to war, Trump doesn't bring it up. You could construe that as a threat -- give us $10B for the wall, or we fight -- but Trump isn't saying they would have to actively hand over any money anyway. He's saying he'd reduce subsidies. No fighting necessary. I'd rather not misrepresent what he says because I think his ideas are dumb on their merits. I don't see how a wall is a positive-NPV project for the benefits we would get. And I don't see how we benefit from a combative relationship with an important neighbor. I don't see how things get better if you root out and deport 12m residents who have jobs and families here. I actually don't have a problem with implementing more border security as part of a broader solution, but Trump's approach is a complete abortion of a policy idea.
It is seriously laughable that anyone believes a wall...a freaking WALL...is going to put an end to an industry that is worth BILLIONS of dollars to drug lords. Ah geez, I was going to send these drugs into the USA to sell for 1 BILLION dollars, but not they built a wall!
Legal mar1juana is already hurting the cartels. More legalization along with a secure border will make it even more difficult and expensive for cartels to smuggle. That makes the drugs that do come in more expensive and hopefully out of reach of the poor and young. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/03/legal-mar1juana-is-finally-doing-what-the-drug-war-couldnt/
Shhhhh.. Don't tell Trump that. He hasn't yet realize that Mexican too uses technology to transfer money and drugs. Heck, as he call on a wall, the drug lords are probably planning small army of drones to carry drugs.
Having Mexico 'pay' for the wall by removing subsidies already seemed like playing fast-and-loose with language. If we pay for the wall with sales tax revenues raised by the US government on transactions by US residents, you really can't say the Mexicans are paying for it.
Here's a couple of potential ways to "make Mexico pay" for the wall. Whether such legislation could be drafted is another matter: 1. Tariff all goods inc from Mexico. Dip into that 58 billion trade deficit. 2. Add an extra fee to remittances- Every wire transaction (personal or corporate) that sends money into Mexico. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/mexico-got-more-money-remittances-oil-revenues-2015-n510346 Both of those could go pretty far toward building a hypothetical wall.
no they don't, most of the trade is with mules. i.e. trucks and people crossing the us/mex border. most of those folks are forced to do it for many different reasons. which is more difficult and expensive...
