Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[pilferk]

The market has been due for a correction for some time now but other factors certainly aren't helping.

Oh, for sure.

The political uncertainty, Trump's slagging of the fed over interest rates, and "trade wars" aren't helping things (witness the drop after Apple's announcement they aren't selling as many i-phones in China...though only part of that is probably the "trade war" effects), but that's not all that's going on (and probably isn't even MOST of what's going on).  There are leading indicators of an economic slowdown (which we are also due for) and, as you mentioned, a correction (though, if you look at cash in the bank, the valuation of a lot of these companies isn't all that far off).
 
We've been in a down and volatile market since October or so.  Most experts expect that to continue for awhile.

It is what it is and there's no use pretending otherwise (as the original poster I responded to seemed to be implying we should).

What I DO find funny/ironic/hypocritical is this (in context): Trump wanted ALL the credit for the market when the market was up, and his supporters insisted he deserved it.

When the market is down, precipitously, and volatile, Trump wants nothing to do with it and blames everyone else for the fluctuations (it's the voters fault for electing Dems in November!), and his supporters insist we all ignore the market fluctuations in relation to Trump.

[damnthehaters]

Here we go.....lol.    The end of the world is coming.  .

How's that stock market?   Are we all losing our money? 

Awful, to be honest.

Day to day uncertainty is a terrible market to ride in.  Volitility scares away investors, especially in startups and new enterprise, both of which we need badly.

And yes, people's 401ks have taken a pretty big hit so far this fall/winter.

We are fine!  Unless you are a day trader. 

[tim_m]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/01/18/democrats-demand-investigation-after-report-that-trump-ordered-michael-cohen-lie-congress-about-russian-project/

There's your perjury, obstruction of justice and collusion all in one gift.

[COMAMOTIVE]

We will see
Until special counsel actually levies charges, this is just another of a million stories
Eventually somethings going to take Trumpy down or he will just leave
It's almost over anyway - I think as long as it's not a far-left wacky whack thrown against him in 2020- he's toast

[LunsJail]

We will see
Until special counsel actually levies charges, this is just another of a million stories
Eventually somethings going to take Trumpy down or he will just leave
It's almost over anyway - I think as long as it's not a far-left wacky whack thrown against him in 2020- he's toast

My fear is that there are too many leftists out there who think they can beat him with a wacky whack.

[AxlsMainMan]

I'm deeply confused why the shutdown is even happening when I distinctly remember Trump and Blutarsky both vowing that Mexico would be paying for the Wall

[GypsySoul]

I'm deeply confused why the shutdown is even happening when I distinctly remember Trump and Blutarsky both vowing that Mexico would be paying for the Wall

Unfortunately, it's a matter of semantics.  Under the new USMCA treaty (old NAFTA), Mexico will be paying increased monies to the USA in tariffs, etcetera, which a portion can be allocated to build the wall, etc.  Unfortunately, those monies must be specifically budgeted/allocated for that project by law through congress.  So unless the House/Senate/President all agree to a budget that specifically states that 5.7 billion is allocated for this purpose, it doesn't happen.  Which is the stalemate we are currently confronted with.

[COMAMOTIVE]

The Mexico will pay for it talk was just red meat to growing contingent who felt he was the better overall choice than her.
Even after he was sworn in, he had that talk with the Mexican prez where he basically admitted as much and how bad it's gonna make him look when they don't pay (NSA leaks to thank for the talk, of course  )
So yes to the above - about how he gets more out of them through the new trade agreement but open the damn government now please - because he won't ever admit he's wrong and the other side only cares about resisting him his crown prize.

Also - remember - he was the one who was the "deal-maker" who was gonna change business as usual in Washington.

[sandman]

You definitely got him this time, charlie bown.

[pilferk]

Unfortunately, it's a matter of semantics.  Under the new USMCA treaty (old NAFTA), Mexico will be paying increased monies to the USA in tariffs, etcetera, which a portion can be allocated to build the wall, etc.  Unfortunately, those monies must be specifically budgeted/allocated for that project by law through congress.  So unless the House/Senate/President all agree to a budget that specifically states that 5.7 billion is allocated for this purpose, it doesn't happen.  Which is the stalemate we are currently confronted with.

It's really not.

1) USMCA has not been approved by congress.

2) That's not the way tariffs work.

3) USMCA adds exactly 0 new tariffs on goods coming into the US from Mexico.

4) Any increase in taxes on the (relatively minor, according to economists and trade experts) increase in trade revenue realized by US companies won't come CLOSE to 5 billion any time in the near future (and certainly not within the next 2 - 6 years)....and that still isn't Mexico paying for the wall.  It's private citizens (US citizens) paying more in taxes on their earnings.

Mexico is not paying for the wall. Not directly, not indirectly, not at all.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/jan/04/donald-trump/no-usmca-trade-deal-wont-pay-border-wall-despite-d/

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/12/is-mexico-paying-for-the-wall-through-usmca/

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/11/heres-why-a-trade-deal-with-mexico-wont-pay-for-trumps-wall.html

[GypsySoul]

As the President stated, no one expected Mexico to write a check with the words "Build The Wall" in the memo.  The monies to "Build The Wall" must by law be specifically budgeted/allocated for that project through congress and signed/okay by the President.  Hence the stalemate. 

Fun Fact:  If, in fact, Mexico did write an actual check with the words "Build The Wall" in the memo portion of the check, that can be the ONLY use for those monies by law.

[pilferk]

As the President stated, no one expected Mexico to write a check with the words "Build The Wall" in the memo.  The monies to "Build The Wall" must by law be specifically budgeted/allocated for that project through congress and signed/okay by the President.  Hence the stalemate. 

Fun Fact:  If, in fact, Mexico did write an actual check with the words "Build The Wall" in the memo portion of the check, that can be the ONLY use for those monies by law.

Fun fact: On his campaign site, he literally said Mecico would write a check.

Fun fact: In 3 different interviews during the campaign, he literally said they would directly pay for it. Thats responses to direct questions about exactly this scenario (reclaiming payment via alternate revenue). He said no need....Mexico would write a check.

Fun fact: in interview after interview, during the campaign, voters at his rallies  confirmed that...yes...they expected Mexico to write a check.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/01/trump-revises-history-on-mexicos-wall-payment

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/10/trump-claims-he-never-said-mexico-would-cut-check-wall-lets-go-tape/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d55ac9c80926

Gypsy...this is all stuff thats documented. These are his words. It was his documented campaign platform. And its all there for everyone to see by doing about 3 min of google searching.

Trump absolutely meant Mexico would write a check.....until he didnt because it was politically inconvenient. He lied to you then, just like he is lying about not meaning they would write a check, now. Just like he is lying about USMCA having things in it that would equate to Mexico paying for the wall.

Say it with me: Mexico is not paying for the wall.

What would have to happen if they mailed us a check is a moot point. Its a strawman fox news talking point you are parroting.  They havent, thay arent, and they arent indirectly paying for it either. If it gets built, WE are paying for it...the taxpayers. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

IF mexico cuts us that check, THEN we can talk about shutting down the govt til Congress follows Mexicos directive. Til then....its time to face facts and acknowledge reality.

One more time, with feeling: Mexico is not paying for the wall!

On top of that, he had complete control of congress for 2 years, and the wall wasnt enough of a priority to take a stand over and shut down the government. Wouldn't it have been a hell of a lot easier to find 8 dems, who were facing tough elections, in the senate THEN vs finding 6 dem senators from a pool who are safe for at least 2 more years (and, honestly, there are far fewer dem seats up in 2020) AND 40 house dems to get this passed? Of course it would have been.

He got shelled in the midterms. This is his political response to rouse the rabble and stir up his base because things are not looking so rosey for him, and his ego cant take the loss. Hes using fear and xenophobia to stoke the fires of division because that the only way he inows how to "win".  This is his temper tantrum. And we are all just along for the ride.

The impasse is wholly of his creation. The stalemate is wholly of his manufacture. The "crisis" is completle fiction, and his proposed solution wouldnt solve the problem even if it was. Congress had a bipartisan bill ready to go to fund the government....right up until Trump decided to shut things down over his worthless, ineffective penis extension (which is probably the most apt analogy ever made).

But, to get back to the discussion at hand: Mexico is not paying for the wall.

[GypsySoul]

On top of that, he had complete control of congress for 2 years, and the wall wasnt enough of a priority to take a stand over and shut down the government. Wouldn't it have been a hell of a lot easier to find 8 dems, who were facing tough elections, in the senate THEN vs finding 6 dem senators from a pool who are safe for at least 2 more years (and, honestly, there are far fewer dem seats up in 2020) AND 40 house dems to get this passed? Of course it would have been.

Not as easy as one would think:

Rep. Dan Crenshaw @RepDanCrenshaw

Big deal that never got reported:

Last week, House GOP voted to pay federal employees their 1st paycheck of 2019, despite shutdown. Only 6 Dems voted with us. It failed.

Dem priority is not paying workers or opening gov't. It is opposing Trump.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll043.xml

[tim_m]

What's the point though if the president won't sign it?

[pilferk]

On top of that, he had complete control of congress for 2 years, and the wall wasnt enough of a priority to take a stand over and shut down the government. Wouldn't it have been a hell of a lot easier to find 8 dems, who were facing tough elections, in the senate THEN vs finding 6 dem senators from a pool who are safe for at least 2 more years (and, honestly, there are far fewer dem seats up in 2020) AND 40 house dems to get this passed? Of course it would have been.

Not as easy as one would think:

Rep. Dan Crenshaw @RepDanCrenshaw

Big deal that never got reported:

Last week, House GOP voted to pay federal employees their 1st paycheck of 2019, despite shutdown. Only 6 Dems voted with us. It failed.

Dem priority is not paying workers or opening gov't. It is opposing Trump.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll043.xml

Irrelevant. If anything it proves my point. Trump would have had a much easier time with this back when his party controlled the house and the Dems were facing pressure in the senate with upcoming elections. And yet...

In addition, Dems have/had already voted for a bill that pays federal workers back pay once the shutdown ends.  Which disproves the hypothesis, above.

Also, it's not true. Read the actual bill and details of the role call vote he's linking.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-resolution/28

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/index.asp

What the dems voted against was to resend the SAME bill they'd already sent to the senate....with additional instructions.  The bill, itself (which the president had already refused to sign, and the Senate had previously refused to vote on), had already passed the House. Further instructions would have been pointless.  And if the bill passes the Senate, and got signed by the president...the additional instructions included are pointless.  The government would be reopened...so federal employees would get back pay (and future pay).  And if it failed the Senate vote OR if the President vetoed it....further instructions would never be enacted, so they'd be pointless.

It was, again, an act of political theater by the republicans so they could say they voted for it. Once again, your example actually proves another of my points.

On top of that, the SC has designated the course of action being suggested is illegal/unconstitutional.  There has to be a CR to fund agencies in order to pay federal employees.

And Mexico is still not paying for the wall.

[jarmo]

Why can't the amazing businessman get private funding for his wall? Get some sponsors....

In "socialist" countries, tax money is used for infrastructure projects..... Is the USA is turning into Venezuela? 


The East Germans built a wall to "keep the fascists out".... Reagan wanted it torn down. Fortunately it happened. Now here we are, people are still thinking walls are the answer to their problems (if there are no problems, they can be made up).




/jarmo

[tim_m]

Why can't the amazing businessman get private funding for his wall? Get some sponsors....

In "socialist" countries, tax money is used for infrastructure projects..... Is the USA is turning into Venezuela? 


The East Germans built a wall to "keep the fascists out".... Reagan wanted it torn down. Fortunately it happened. Now here we are, people are still thinking walls are the answer to their problems (if there are no problems, they can be made up).




/jarmo

And there are none, in fact southern boarder crossings have been declining for years cause even Central Americans don't want into this dumpster fire. Walls still can't stop tunnels or illegals coming in via airplane who come on visas and never leave. Notice you don't see anyone up in arms over the number of white illegals and there are plenty from Europe and Canada. What about the Asians? There are more of them coming in per capita then those from Mexico now. Fearmongering is a powerful weapon and Trump is running its playbook play by play.

[pilferk]

Why can't the amazing businessman get private funding for his wall? Get some sponsors....

In "socialist" countries, tax money is used for infrastructure projects..... Is the USA is turning into Venezuela? 


The East Germans built a wall to "keep the fascists out".... Reagan wanted it torn down. Fortunately it happened. Now here we are, people are still thinking walls are the answer to their problems (if there are no problems, they can be made up).




/jarmo

And there are none, in fact southern boarder crossings have been declining for years cause even Central Americans don't want into this dumpster fire. Walls still can't stop tunnels or illegals coming in via airplane who come on visas and never leave. Notice you don't see anyone up in arms over the number of white illegals and there are plenty from Europe and Canada. What about the Asians? There are more of them coming in per capita then those from Mexico now. Fearmongering is a powerful weapon and Trump is running its playbook play by play.

70%-ish of illegal immigration is from visa overstays. Not illegal border crossings. Right around 30% are from border crossings....some from asylum request overstays (which the wall isn't going to help).

75% of human trafficking comes through the northern/northeastern corridor.  They are mostly eastern european women (followed closely by Asian women) pressed into the sex trade.

The 25% that comes over the southern border? Mostly by sea, or ports of entry. In 2016/2016, there were exactly 508 reported human trafficking (mostly women, mostly for labor) victims reported as coming across the southern border.

80% of drugs that come into the country come through legal ports of entry...and MOST of that remaining 20%? Pot, not hard drugs. 

The opiates? 95% come through legal ports of entry.

Illegal border crossings are at a 40 year low, and have not departed, under Trump, from the trend line that started back in 2008.

There is literally no reason for a wall. Whether Mexico is paying for it or not (spoiler: They're not).

There IS a need for more border security agents (mostly stationed at ports of entry), more technology at ports of entry, and more immigration judges to work through the backlog.  There IS a crisis at the border: There are more women and children showing up, looking for asylum, than there have been...fleeing violence in central american countries.  No wall is going to stop them showing up at ports or entry (or legal border crossings) and asking for asylum. No wall is going to stop the violence that's going in in those countries. Our country needs to find a way to deal with THAT crisis...and it isn't separating kids from their parents/mothers at the border.

The democrats have been pretty willing to give the president what he wants in terms of border patrol, tech, and judges.  They're not keen on wasting money so he can build a worthless, ineffective penis extension, simply to get his base excited (and yes, that imagery is wholly intentional).

If Trump really needs to erect something, he should just take a little blue pill.  Way cheaper, and pretty much just as relevant (and effective) as building a wall would be.

[allwaystired]

Why can't the amazing businessman get private funding for his wall? Get some sponsors....

In "socialist" countries, tax money is used for infrastructure projects..... Is the USA is turning into Venezuela? 


The East Germans built a wall to "keep the fascists out".... Reagan wanted it torn down. Fortunately it happened. Now here we are, people are still thinking walls are the answer to their problems (if there are no problems, they can be made up).




/jarmo

I think we all know why he can't get private investment for his wall - no one will touch it with a bargepole.

It's insane - I remember back when Trump was running and people were howling with laughter about this ignorant, racist, sexist, rich-guy reality star wanting to run for President with "building a big wall around Mexico" as one of his ideas. It seemed so ludicrous it was just funny. It boggles the mind that not only did it happen, but the US government is in shutdown while that man throws a tantrum about it not actually being feasible.

Trumps method of control is simply fear. Hatred as a tool. Stoking fear in those that have little against others who have little, while him and his rich pals get on with filling their pockets, destroying the environment, and diverting attention from themselves.

That people don't see this age old diversion trick, which has been used for centuries by all sorts of lunatics, says much about the vulnerability of the disenfranchised and the risks of not listening to those who don't have a voice. If you don't listen - someone will pretend to, and use that pretense for their own gain.

[COMAMOTIVE]

Roger Stone was arrested

Shocker