I'm not even sure what i'm being demanded to believe. That Trump is an idiot because the AP says in it's transcript something he said is unintelligible? That AP is such a bastion of honesty it would never slant it's reporting as it's been proven to do? Clarify the claim i'm supposed to believe in and i'll tell you why I do or do not believe and why.
If this AP report is the thing that would convince you that Trump's unintelligible then you have never heard him speak before because this is how he always speaks. And look beyond the unintelligible parts, the parts where he said words he's just as confused and meandering.
"TRUMP: But things change. There has to be flexibility. Let me give you an example. President Xi, we have a, like, a really great relationship. For me to call him a currency manipulator and then say, "By the way, I'd like you to solve the North Korean problem," doesn't work. So you have to have a certain flexibility, Number One. Number Two, from the time I took office till now, you know, it's a very exact thing. It's not like generalities. Do you want a Coke or anything?
AP: I'm OK, thank you. No. ..."
This is par for the course for any speech from Trump you get a lot of "believe me, tremendous , abc is a good friend of mine, and xyz is terrible".
Look, when Trump said (and this isn't the direct quote but it will suffice for this discussion) that he could "shoot someone in the middle of 5th Ave and not lose a vote", I thought initially it was a useful exaggeration to examine for a bigger truth. In hindsight, if it IS even an exaggeration, it's only the slightest bit so. He already bragged about something that is a crime on tape. His voters did not care. If the person Donald Trump hypothetically shot on 5th Ave was a liberal protester, or a BLM member, or a Muslim, 25-30% of the population wouldn't really care. They would say they had it coming.
The thing is, Trump lies so often, and so brazenly, that escape hatches like "fake news" and "he wasn't serious" HAVE to exist for him to function with even the support he has. There are no policies for Trump supporters to rally around. Trump having a foil or enemy to lash out at is absolutely essential to his popularity among the base. If he doesn't do anything else, he still pisses liberals off, and that is the core of his support.
An unintelligible person doesn't become a successful multi-billionaire and create working relationships with the heads of other countries.
Sorry this seems like pretty petty criticism honestly, and reading the transcript it's completely fine too lol so i don't know what the fuss is about.
In fact it reads absolutely fine, Sorry but kind of dissapointed in you guys. Seems more like echo-clambering without looking at the details.
I've been watching the DNC Unity Tour to see what direction the party will take, and Tom Perez is getting routinely booed by the democrats when he speaks.
Looks like Bernie Supporters are still quite vocal and angry about him.
An unintelligible person doesn't become a successful multi-billionaire and create working relationships with the heads of other countries.
Sorry this seems like pretty petty criticism honestly, and reading the transcript it's completely fine so i don't know what the fuss is about.
I've been watching the DNC Unity Tour to see what direction the party will take, and Tom Perez is getting routinely booed by the democrats when he speaks.
Looks like Bernie Supporters are still quite vocal and angry about him.
And yet Bernie is on a tour with him, so do they dismiss the man they are so dedicated to?? There is quite a bit of cognitive dissonance going on with disaffected Bernie voters. They view the guy as a messiah yet seem to have no problem with HIM endorsing Hillary or HIM going on a tour with Tom Perez, even though they ignore the fact that he is endorsing or lending his support. They still hate Hillary and Perez, but don't criticize Bernie when he backs them.
Bernie endorsing Hillary didn't go over with many of his supporters well because they considered her exactly what he was opposed too.
Which is true, but political necessity does not always agree with ones idealism.
Honestly the DNC just hasn't chosen good leaders imo, Tom Perez isn't good, Keith Ellison isn't Good.
They should pick Tulsi Gabbard or Jim Webb.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Democratic base if you think Jim Webb wouldn't have been an epic disaster for this post.
Bush, Obama and Trump have proven you win with your base, and you sure as hell will ONLY win in a mid-term with high base turnout. You win by getting out your people. There is a vast wasteland reserved for those who try appeal to "swing voters" because there aren't that many left.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Democratic base if you think Jim Webb wouldn't have been an epic disaster for this post.
Bush, Obama and Trump have proven you win with your base, and you sure as hell will ONLY win in a mid-term with high base turnout. You win by getting out your people. There is a vast wasteland reserved for those who try appeal to "swing voters" because there aren't that many left.
Bush and Obama won because they was able to win the work-class, evident because for Trump to win he had to flip all 5 states which were Obama's and...was the stereotypical rust-belt states.
To win elections, you need to win the working-class who easily sway between parties depending on how they perceive who would help them more.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Democratic base if you think Jim Webb wouldn't have been an epic disaster for this post.
Bush, Obama and Trump have proven you win with your base, and you sure as hell will ONLY win in a mid-term with high base turnout. You win by getting out your people. There is a vast wasteland reserved for those who try appeal to "swing voters" because there aren't that many left.
Bush and Obama won because they was able to win the work-class, evident because for Trump to win he had to flip all 5 states which were Obama's and...was the stereotypical rust-belt states.
To win elections, you need to win the working-class who easily sway between parties depending on how they perceive who would help them more.
This has been the case for a very long time.
Define "working class", because anyone who isn't obscenely wealthly and has a job fits this description. And there are at least a couple demographic groups who fit this description and vote at a 70-90% clip for Democrats and DON'T flip between elections.
Sociologists and academics use the term 'Working Class' in America to define a group of people differentiated by lower socio-economics in the work-force, It is a class description.
Generally considered people who don't have degree's and who don't work well paying White-Collared jobs. People who generally work the lower-end of jobs in society. Waitresses, Truck drivers, cleaners, manual labor workers etc.
This is why 'Rust-Belt' workers are almost completely synonymous with 'Working Class'
@WarChiefZeke: I wasn't speaking to you personally; I don't think it's polite to demand that another forumite answer a question (mostly because the question is usually an implicit accusation). I've criticized that practice before--this thread is not a trial. The question was rhetorical.
I wasn't referring to a specific claim about Trump; I was complaining about the notion that we can dismiss an interview transcript (or any piece of evidence) out of hand on the grounds that the interviewer is biased and could have falsified it.
If we had a specific reason to believe the transcript was inaccurate--if we at least knew which part of the transcript was wrong--that would be another thing entirely. Because then, we'd be making our judgment based on the evidence itself.
But when we judge evidence based solely on the source instead of the evidence's own merit, then we are not basing our conclusions on evidence at all. We're basing it on whether we trust the source.
In which case our personal opinion becomes the standard for truth, and the only evidence that matters to us is the evidence we deem acceptable.
As I've said before (in reference to a liberal poster disregarding a conservative source out of hand), we should evaluate evidence on its own merits. We can be suspicious of the source, but we can't simply assume everything the source says is wrong.
One could object that this is a strawman: "We don't assume everything it says is wrong." But if we don't assume everything it says is wrong, then what parts would we believe are true?
I think all of us could answer that question. But the only way we could do it is if we said "this source is usually unreliable, but this piece of evidence is still true because X, Y, and Z."
In other words, we'd be evaluating the evidence on its own merits.
Ah, I get the gist of your comments now. Regardless of the merits of AP's editing or reporting in general, unintelligible comments are just that, unintelligible and not worth further discussion.
Regarding the "Unity Tour", I respect Bernie but the DNC does not and have shown it by their own actions. Bernie said recently he doesn't consider himself a Democrat, which is good. They're not really interested in his direction, but they are desperate to channel the energy he gives to the liberal voting base into votes for candidates who do not represent those ideals. A schism that has to solve itself one way or another.
Regarding the "Unity Tour", I respect Bernie but the DNC does not and have shown it by their own actions. Bernie said recently he doesn't consider himself a Democrat, which is good. They're not really interested in his direction, but they are desperate to channel the energy he gives to the liberal voting base into votes for candidates who do not represent those ideals. A schism that has to solve itself one way or another.
I remember when everyone was waiting in baited breath for the GOP/DNC conventions. And the GOP went off without much of a hitch (Except to boo Ted Cruz).
But the DNC was a complete crap-show with Bernie supporters booing left and right and slamming the outside fence.
There seems to be quite a gap between the younger enthusiastic leftist liberals in the Democrat base and the older guard.
The reformists....here's the deal with Trump being a "reformer". Tom Price could have easily been Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio's HHS Secretary. Betsy DeVos could have bought herself Secretary of Education with any of them. The Chief of Staff, Reince Preibus, is the absolute definition of the Republican establishment. Trump TOLD you he was reforming the party, then turned around and picked a cabinet that nearly ANY Republican other than Rand Paul would have chosen and handed the legislative agenda off to Paul Ryan. The only "reform" going on is the nepotism of Ivanka and Jared Kushner. And whether or not you think having the CEO of Exxon/Mobile as Secretary of State is a move "for the people".
Lol no, Trump has always said during his campaign he would try to get the best 'dealmakers' he knew in the country, he never campaigned on his cabinet being filled with, what? Farmers i suppose? or that rich people are the problem (kind of closer to Bernie).
He has been pretty up front with it.
You can arbitrarily pick and choose one or two people in his 'cabinet' that you feel is establishment and say he 'betrayed' someone, but then you ignore all the people that would never have been picked by the establishment like Sessions.
Of course people who say Trump is no different then your typical 'establishment' at the same time complain about Bannon being way 'out there' , so such criticism's lack any coherency and smacks of criticism for criticism's sake.
He's barely begun the first year of his first term and his opposition is already trying to write him off as somehow betraying the grassroots movement that brought him there. I've seen him make serious effort on his promises already so I don't see the doom and gloom.
Rofl Le Russia Meme, Kind of like Trump was a Russian Agent until he went hard on Russia for Syria.
Naom Chomsky (one of the most renowned Scholars and virulently anti-American Intervention) was asked about that, and he laughed at the persons face, and everyone in the room laughed with him. Then he proceeds to give a history lesson on U.S. election meddling in other countries, and Not even long ago, Ones involving Hillary and Obama being involved in ousting Legitimate Governments.
Everything Trump's tried to do has been for millionaires, billionaires, and big corporations at the expense of the environment, the poor and working class. He has also tried to throw a bone to his anti-immigrant base as well.
Millionaires and billionaire loves open borders as it allows them to obliterate working class wages through the simple law of supply and demand. Bernie Sanders agrees, he's called open borders a Koch funded brothers anti working class policy and that he was against it. Trump is absolutely helping the working class through his anti TPP, anti open borders policies. That's why he won such huge swaths of traditionally blue working class voters. They know where there interests lie.
Trump is, once again, turning out to be a loser of the highest order as far as "deal-making" goes. THEY started this fight about trying to force Congress to provide taxpayer funding (not Mexican money) to pay for the Border Wall, going so far as to say they would be willing to shut down the government over it. Politically, given Trump's UNMISTAKABLE campaign promise to make Mexico pay for it, this is basically Trump threatening to set himself on fire if Democrats and hesitant Republicans in the Senate don't submit to his demands. This is why running the government isn't like NY real estate or being the star of a reality TV show. This is where his "fantastic deal-making" is supposed to shine through, that through the power of his personality he will simply make things happen. A load of nonsense. Much like on healthcare and his travel ban, he is, again, nothing but a complete loser.
Liberals only have minimal problems with the MSM because the MSM is vastly on their side. CNN,MSNBC, AP,NYT. Vast, vast majority of journalists also liberal. Meanwhile the MSM gets horrible trust ratings among the general public. Not hard to see why.
Mm, yeah, no. The MSM in the United States is dedicated to the Cult of Savvy, and that's it, and that's all.
Perhaps you forget about how the media cheerled the United States into the Iraq war? That the fricking New York Times was still using the Orwellian "enhanced interrogation" until years after the Bush administration was gone? Their hostility towards Wikileaks and Edward Snowden? Their rush to declare Trump "presidential" or "pivoting" every time he does anything that smacks of normalcy?
There is no such thing as a left-wing mainstream media outlet in the United States. The closest things are outlets which largely support the interests and priorities of the Democratic Party, which is very much not the same thing.
In your scenario, the MSM would obviously have high trust ratings among liberals (because it's so liberal). But it doesn't - and the fact Fox News is MSM too isn't the reason. And congress (Republican for years) wouldn't have trust ratings about equivalent to bowel cancer.
There are many many ways that Mexico could pay for the wall, not overt ways either when you have a look at the breadth of interaction economically and legal U.S. has with Mexico.
Trump has even once or twice remarked on that (and rarely elaborated on because the media doesn't like talking about dry financial or economic stuff).
When your a massive trading partner with the U.S., It is not hard at all to juggle things to get what you want, Hell Trump just got China to buy U.S. Coal instead of North Korea which is a massive massive shot to the coal industry in the U.S.
If you think the New York Times is running defense for Trump we're clearly living in two separate universes. I cannot even fathom how one can come to that conclusion. Although why they are all about punishing whisteblowers is easy, Obama was all about that as well.
The Democratic Party is probably not closely aligned with the interests of the left wing in general so i'll grant you that, yet the fact remains all these outlets and the vast majority of journalists are democrat and liberal, not republican and conservative. The fact that Fox News is the only major conservative outlet that can be mentioned is exactly the point. Breitbart is simply heresy.
There are many many ways that Mexico could pay for the wall, not overt ways either when you have a look at the breadth of interaction economically and legal U.S. has with Mexico.
Trump has even once or twice remarked on that (and rarely elaborated on because the media doesn't like talking about dry financial or economic stuff).
When your a massive trading partner with the U.S., It is not hard at all to juggle things to get what you want, Hell Trump just got China to buy U.S. Coal instead of North Korea which is a massive massive shot to the coal industry in the U.S.
You and other Trump defenders can retroactively continue to try to divine what Trump ACTUALLY meant by his statements on the wall from now until the end of time. You can say what he actually meant was that it was going to be trade sanctions, or tariffs (which would STILL be a tax on US consumers btw) or you can say he actually meant that we were going to colonize Pluto to launch expeditions to siphon gas from Neptune to fund the damn thing. They all have the same level of legitimacy, which is none:
But, you know, that video is clearly the work of the left-wing media who hates Trump. They probably made him say those things. Wasn't actually his fault. Hell, that might not even really BE Donald Trump. Probably just some liberal actor and fancy special effects.
What are you talking about? Various news outlets reported that Trump has mentioned a variety of ways he could get Mexico to pay which does include Remittances.
During his campaign, Trump said multiple times that Mexico will pay for the wall. He even threatened to halt or tax cash transfers -- known as remittances -- from the U.S. to Mexico if the country refused to pay for it. http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/25/news/economy/mexico-remittances-trump/
Economically or financially its not hard to pull off, He was easily able to pull off China taking American Coal instead of North Korea, Financing the wall honestly isn't that hard in the grand scheme of things.
I suggest you read your own article in which the Mexican President, in no uncertain terms, says he will not give in to this demand, and the last line of the CNN piece which says, and I quote:
But experts caution that even if Trump halts or taxes remittances, Mexicans will still find ways to get cash over the border without paying a tax. Alberto Ramos, head of Latin America research at Goldman Sachs (GS), says that when wire services charged high fees a decade ago, Mexicans still got their money across the border either in-person, through the mail or via traveling relatives. "If you tax that money it won't necessarily stay in the U.S. It can still go to Mexico through informal channels," says Ramos.
Yeah, he's really got them over a barrel.....never mind the fact that Trump is such a hated figure in Mexico that giving in to him on such a thing would be tantamount to political suicide.
I suggest you read your own article in which the Mexican President, in no uncertain terms, says he will not give in to this demand, and the last line of the CNN piece which says, and I quote:
But experts caution that even if Trump halts or taxes remittances, Mexicans will still find ways to get cash over the border without paying a tax. Alberto Ramos, head of Latin America research at Goldman Sachs (GS), says that when wire services charged high fees a decade ago, Mexicans still got their money across the border either in-person, through the mail or via traveling relatives. "If you tax that money it won't necessarily stay in the U.S. It can still go to Mexico through informal channels," says Ramos.
Yeah, he's really got them over a barrel.....
You think mexico has a say in the matter? Lol, Or its not just political posturing?
U.S. holds all the cards over Mexico, Do you know how big the U.S. is compared to Mexico in virtually every aspect?
And if you think mailing money or travelling across land is going to somehow replace wire-transfer then i don't know what to say.
I doubt the vast bulk of wire-transfers is going to be replaced by some sort of human ferry system jogging across swathes of land.
Instant money transfers are going to be 'replaced' by humans running or jogging and taking weeks to get to the recipient? No.
I suggest you read your own article in which the Mexican President, in no uncertain terms, says he will not give in to this demand, and the last line of the CNN piece which says, and I quote:
But experts caution that even if Trump halts or taxes remittances, Mexicans will still find ways to get cash over the border without paying a tax. Alberto Ramos, head of Latin America research at Goldman Sachs (GS), says that when wire services charged high fees a decade ago, Mexicans still got their money across the border either in-person, through the mail or via traveling relatives. "If you tax that money it won't necessarily stay in the U.S. It can still go to Mexico through informal channels," says Ramos.
Yeah, he's really got them over a barrel.....
You think mexico has a say in the matter? Lol. U.S. holds all the cards over Mexico, Do you know how big the U.S. is compared to Mexico in virtually every aspect?
And if you think mailing money or travelling across land is going to somehow replace wire-transfer lol.
I doubt the vast bulk of wire-transfers is going to be replaced by some sort of human ferry system jogging across swathes of land.
Yeah, I do think they have a say in the matter. This may come as a shock, but world leaders aren't all that intimidated by this blustering buffoon. I see no reason to be scared of a guy who can't even get a health care bill through his own Republican controlled Congress, and can't manage to bother to write a travel ban that will pass muster at any Circuit Court in the country. I'd also love to see the American public's reaction if Trump eventually throws a tariff on Mexican imports. That will be absolutely hilarious. It would be worth paying extra for all those things just to watch Trump supporters tie themselves in knots trying to explain why certain everyday products they buy double in price. He has no cards, nothing but hot air.
And, by the way, the quote was a huge bulk of the article YOU posted, I didn't go searching it out. Wire transfers. We're going to pay for the wall by denying wire transfers. Gotcha. By the way, you seem to be very much in favor of freedom to do what you wish with money you earn....does this not apply to legal Mexican residents who earn their money from their employer who want to help their families back home?? Because even if this WOULD work (which it won't) this is nothing but trying to blackmail a country by extorting money from hard-working poor people. And it's morally reprehensible, on top of everything else.
Rofl, World leaders that have to manage economy and Government don't operate based on simple personality competitions (unless your a nutjob like Kim).
The U.S. has all the power and leverage in anything with Mexico, Mexico is reliant on the U.S. just to survive, not the other way around.
Take a look at China, Trump spent virtually the entire time going after China and instantly now their best friends working together.
These world leaders don't care about our little partisan politics.
Remittances is a much more complicated beast then you make out, a vast amount of remittances comes from Immigrants that the U.S. Government supports via welfare (75% of Immigrants gain Government welfare assistance).
Ergo a huge amount of remittance is not from 'work' but from the U.S. Government's welfare program, Which is a very old criticism.
When you factor in that 2015, Forbes outlined how Remittance and not Oil is what is propping up the Mexican Economy, You begin to realize that Mexico is literally surviving not on their internal trade industries but by the majority of immigrants in America sending money back home.
Do you realize how ludicrous that is? Mexico needs U.S. just to not collapse.
Comments
"TRUMP: But things change. There has to be flexibility. Let me give you an example. President Xi, we have a, like, a really great relationship. For me to call him a currency manipulator and then say, "By the way, I'd like you to solve the North Korean problem," doesn't work. So you have to have a certain flexibility, Number One. Number Two, from the time I took office till now, you know, it's a very exact thing. It's not like generalities. Do you want a Coke or anything?
AP: I'm OK, thank you. No. ..."
This is par for the course for any speech from Trump you get a lot of "believe me, tremendous , abc is a good friend of mine, and xyz is terrible".
The thing is, Trump lies so often, and so brazenly, that escape hatches like "fake news" and "he wasn't serious" HAVE to exist for him to function with even the support he has. There are no policies for Trump supporters to rally around. Trump having a foil or enemy to lash out at is absolutely essential to his popularity among the base. If he doesn't do anything else, he still pisses liberals off, and that is the core of his support.
Sorry this seems like pretty petty criticism honestly, and reading the transcript it's completely fine too lol so i don't know what the fuss is about.
In fact it reads absolutely fine, Sorry but kind of dissapointed in you guys. Seems more like echo-clambering without looking at the details.
I've been watching the DNC Unity Tour to see what direction the party will take, and Tom Perez is getting routinely booed by the democrats when he speaks.
Looks like Bernie Supporters are still quite vocal and angry about him.
Which is true, but political necessity does not always agree with ones idealism.
Honestly the DNC just hasn't chosen good leaders imo, Tom Perez isn't good, Keith Ellison isn't Good.
They should pick Tulsi Gabbard or Jim Webb although Jim Webb seems to have exited the party in disgust.
Bush, Obama and Trump have proven you win with your base, and you sure as hell will ONLY win in a mid-term with high base turnout. You win by getting out your people. There is a vast wasteland reserved for those who try appeal to "swing voters" because there aren't that many left.
To win elections, you need to win the working-class who easily sway between parties depending on how they perceive who would help them more.
This has been the case for a very long time.
Generally considered people who don't have degree's and who don't work well paying White-Collared jobs.
People who generally work the lower-end of jobs in society.
Waitresses, Truck drivers, cleaners, manual labor workers etc.
This is why 'Rust-Belt' workers are almost completely synonymous with 'Working Class'
I wasn't referring to a specific claim about Trump; I was complaining about the notion that we can dismiss an interview transcript (or any piece of evidence) out of hand on the grounds that the interviewer is biased and could have falsified it.
If we had a specific reason to believe the transcript was inaccurate--if we at least knew which part of the transcript was wrong--that would be another thing entirely. Because then, we'd be making our judgment based on the evidence itself.
But when we judge evidence based solely on the source instead of the evidence's own merit, then we are not basing our conclusions on evidence at all. We're basing it on whether we trust the source.
In which case our personal opinion becomes the standard for truth, and the only evidence that matters to us is the evidence we deem acceptable.
As I've said before (in reference to a liberal poster disregarding a conservative source out of hand), we should evaluate evidence on its own merits. We can be suspicious of the source, but we can't simply assume everything the source says is wrong.
One could object that this is a strawman: "We don't assume everything it says is wrong." But if we don't assume everything it says is wrong, then what parts would we believe are true?
I think all of us could answer that question. But the only way we could do it is if we said "this source is usually unreliable, but this piece of evidence is still true because X, Y, and Z."
In other words, we'd be evaluating the evidence on its own merits.
Regarding the "Unity Tour", I respect Bernie but the DNC does not and have shown it by their own actions. Bernie said recently he doesn't consider himself a Democrat, which is good. They're not really interested in his direction, but they are desperate to channel the energy he gives to the liberal voting base into votes for candidates who do not represent those ideals. A schism that has to solve itself one way or another.
And the GOP went off without much of a hitch (Except to boo Ted Cruz).
But the DNC was a complete crap-show with Bernie supporters booing left and right and slamming the outside fence.
There seems to be quite a gap between the younger enthusiastic leftist liberals in the Democrat base and the older guard.
He has been pretty up front with it.
You can arbitrarily pick and choose one or two people in his 'cabinet' that you feel is establishment and say he 'betrayed' someone, but then you ignore all the people that would never have been picked by the establishment like Sessions.
Of course people who say Trump is no different then your typical 'establishment' at the same time complain about Bannon being way 'out there' , so such criticism's lack any coherency and smacks of criticism for criticism's sake.
Well that didn't take long. In fact, they've been trying to help LePen all last month. The benefit of knowing it was coming probably helps a ton.
Naom Chomsky (one of the most renowned Scholars and virulently anti-American Intervention) was asked about that, and he laughed at the persons face, and everyone in the room laughed with him.
Then he proceeds to give a history lesson on U.S. election meddling in other countries, and Not even long ago, Ones involving Hillary and Obama being involved in ousting Legitimate Governments.
I agree with him, it makes people laugh.
Have a good watch of the interview.
Perhaps you forget about how the media cheerled the United States into the Iraq war? That the fricking New York Times was still using the Orwellian "enhanced interrogation" until years after the Bush administration was gone? Their hostility towards Wikileaks and Edward Snowden? Their rush to declare Trump "presidential" or "pivoting" every time he does anything that smacks of normalcy?
There is no such thing as a left-wing mainstream media outlet in the United States. The closest things are outlets which largely support the interests and priorities of the Democratic Party, which is very much not the same thing.
In your scenario, the MSM would obviously have high trust ratings among liberals (because it's so liberal). But it doesn't - and the fact Fox News is MSM too isn't the reason. And congress (Republican for years) wouldn't have trust ratings about equivalent to bowel cancer.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/12/05/how-trump-could-get-mexicans-to-pay-for-the-wall/#21428fa3243f
Trump has even once or twice remarked on that (and rarely elaborated on because the media doesn't like talking about dry financial or economic stuff).
When your a massive trading partner with the U.S., It is not hard at all to juggle things to get what you want, Hell Trump just got China to buy U.S. Coal instead of North Korea which is a massive massive shot to the coal industry in the U.S.
The Democratic Party is probably not closely aligned with the interests of the left wing in general so i'll grant you that, yet the fact remains all these outlets and the vast majority of journalists are democrat and liberal, not republican and conservative. The fact that Fox News is the only major conservative outlet that can be mentioned is exactly the point. Breitbart is simply heresy.
But, you know, that video is clearly the work of the left-wing media who hates Trump. They probably made him say those things. Wasn't actually his fault. Hell, that might not even really BE Donald Trump. Probably just some liberal actor and fancy special effects.
Migrants in U.S., Mexico fret about Trump threat to halt remittances
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-mexico-migrants-analysis-idUSKBN14M145
During his campaign, Trump said multiple times that Mexico will pay for the wall. He even threatened to halt or tax cash transfers -- known as remittances -- from the U.S. to Mexico if the country refused to pay for it.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/25/news/economy/mexico-remittances-trump/
Economically or financially its not hard to pull off, He was easily able to pull off China taking American Coal instead of North Korea, Financing the wall honestly isn't that hard in the grand scheme of things.
But experts caution that even if Trump halts or taxes remittances, Mexicans will still find ways to get cash over the border without paying a tax.
Alberto Ramos, head of Latin America research at Goldman Sachs (GS), says that when wire services charged high fees a decade ago, Mexicans still got their money across the border either in-person, through the mail or via traveling relatives.
"If you tax that money it won't necessarily stay in the U.S. It can still go to Mexico through informal channels," says Ramos.
Yeah, he's really got them over a barrel.....never mind the fact that Trump is such a hated figure in Mexico that giving in to him on such a thing would be tantamount to political suicide.
U.S. holds all the cards over Mexico, Do you know how big the U.S. is compared to Mexico in virtually every aspect?
And if you think mailing money or travelling across land is going to somehow replace wire-transfer then i don't know what to say.
I doubt the vast bulk of wire-transfers is going to be replaced by some sort of human ferry system jogging across swathes of land.
Instant money transfers are going to be 'replaced' by humans running or jogging and taking weeks to get to the recipient? No.
And, by the way, the quote was a huge bulk of the article YOU posted, I didn't go searching it out. Wire transfers. We're going to pay for the wall by denying wire transfers. Gotcha. By the way, you seem to be very much in favor of freedom to do what you wish with money you earn....does this not apply to legal Mexican residents who earn their money from their employer who want to help their families back home?? Because even if this WOULD work (which it won't) this is nothing but trying to blackmail a country by extorting money from hard-working poor people. And it's morally reprehensible, on top of everything else.
The U.S. has all the power and leverage in anything with Mexico, Mexico is reliant on the U.S. just to survive, not the other way around.
Take a look at China, Trump spent virtually the entire time going after China and instantly now their best friends working together.
These world leaders don't care about our little partisan politics.
Remittances is a much more complicated beast then you make out, a vast amount of remittances comes from Immigrants that the U.S. Government supports via welfare (75% of Immigrants gain Government welfare assistance).
Ergo a huge amount of remittance is not from 'work' but from the U.S. Government's welfare program, Which is a very old criticism.
When you factor in that 2015, Forbes outlined how Remittance and not Oil is what is propping up the Mexican Economy, You begin to realize that Mexico is literally surviving not on their internal trade industries but by the majority of immigrants in America sending money back home.
Do you realize how ludicrous that is? Mexico needs U.S. just to not collapse.