Is It Possible You’ve Been Played?

[Ponca Dan]

Are you willing to even consider the master manipulator has struck again?


https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/


I ask: what will you consider a success? Trump said tariffs will be in effect until there were no more illegal immigrants storming our border. Yesterday when I enthusiastically praised him I was accused of being sarcastic, that no one actually believes the onslaught has been stopped. So, OK, Trump made a promise he didn’t really mean to keep, and you knew he didn’t mean to keep it all along, that it a super concentrated strategic chess move, and Mexico caved, you and Trump won, and you knew all along there would continue to be a flow of immigrants to our border, but now it will be seriously brought to a trickle. Trump and Mexico said so, so it must be true, right? Of course Trump hasn’t defined what the trickle will be, he’s left that up for you to decide. So: what will you consider the trickle will have to become to prove you and Trump knew what he was doing the whole time? Do you have a number in mind? Identify what will constitute victory! Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

This obviously begs the question: if it was all staged and you/he knew it from the outset, then why the outrage over tariffs?

 

[Soonersincefitty]

Keeping conspiracy theorists in business since 2016.
DJT should get a 25% stipend.

 

[BAPoke]

This obviously begs the question: if it was all staged and you/he knew it from the outset, then why the outrage over tariffs?

Because having your condescending and over simplified cake and eating it too is the hyper intellectual libertarian way.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Three replies and no answers. Try to avoid your fury with me for asking the question and contemplate what you would consider success. Is there a number that you would find acceptable, and would proudly point to as a success?

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

A reduction of half would please me.

 

[Ponca Dan]

A reduction of half would please me.

Half of what? What number would be half? Thank’s for playing, by the way.

 

[Rdcldad]

Because having your condescending and over simplified cake and eating it too is the hyper intellectual libertarian way.

welcome

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

Half of what? What number would be half? Thank’s for playing, by the way.

Half of whole. I don’t know how many cross each year but half of that would be a good start.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Half of whole. I don’t know how many cross each year but half of that would be a good start.

OK, thanks. According to information in the link the USA was deliberating with Mexico in March and agreeing to similar terms that were essentially reported as a Trumpian success following his late May threat of tariffs. So if the report is correct (I have no idea if it is correct) the deal was struck in March but had not yet been implemented. Then May rolled around and there was a sudden unexpected influx of caravaners of a record setting 100,000 people (isn’t that interesting?), catching the border patrol completely off guard, causing them to very publicly beg the president to do something about it, upon which Trump announced his draconian tariffs as a get-tough-on-Mexico measure, followed almost immediately by Mexico “caving” to Trump’s pressure which were terms agreed upon two months earlier but had not been implemented and, most importantly for the point I’m making, had not yet been released to the news media for public dispersal. Now, in my ovrractive cynical imagination this whole thing strikes me as a giant manipulation perpetrated on the public designed to cause most pro-Trump supporters to experience an orgasm. But that’s just me, once again suffering from hatred and cynicism directed at the politician in charge at the time.

At any rate, I got off topic. If we accept the May figure of 100,000 people and you will be satisfied if that number is cut in half, can we safely assume you’re OK with 50,000/month?

 

[Soonersincefitty]

Not really.
I want Poland numbers...ZERO immigrants.
Yes, I'm militantly xenophobic.
No shame either.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

OK, thanks. According to information in the link the USA was deliberating with Mexico in March and agreeing to similar terms that were essentially reported as a Trumpian success following his late May threat of tariffs. So if the report is correct (I have no idea if it is correct) the deal was struck in March but had not yet been implemented. Then May rolled around and there was a sudden unexpected influx of caravaners of a record setting 100,000 people (isn’t that interesting?), catching the border patrol completely off guard, causing them to very publicly beg the president to do something about it, upon which Trump announced his draconian tariffs as a get-tough-on/Mexico measure, followed almost immediately by Mexico “caving” to Trump’s pressure which were terms agreed upon two months earlier but had not been implemented and, most importantly for the point I’m making, had not yet been released to the news media for public dispersal. Now, in my ovrractive cynical imagination this whole thing strikes me as a giant manipulation perpetrated on the public designed to cause most pro-Trump supported to experience an orgasm. But that’s just me, once again suffering from hatred and cynicism directed at the politician in charge at the time.

At any rate, I got off topic. If we accept the May figure of 100,000 people and you will be satisfied if that number is cut in half, can we safely assume you’re OK with 50,000/month?

Let me make my position clear. I think if we shoot a few of them it would make a much bigger impact. So our starting point is the hypothetical max? Give me monthly illegal crossings over the last 3 years and I can give you a better answer.

That said, if Trump can reduce the number without giving up anything, good on him.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

Not really.
I want Poland numbers...ZERO immigrants.
Yes, I'm militantly xenophobic.
No shame either.

This is my position too although I completely support legal immigration so long as the rules are reasonable. Libs would say legal immigration would entail filling out a form at the border and reciting Marx’s Communist Manifesto in Spanish.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Not really.
I want Poland numbers...ZERO immigrants.
Yes, I'm militantly xenophobic.
No shame either.

So that brings up this question. Are you angry or bitter that DJT “caved” on his threat to implement and ratchet up his tariffs until the number is reduced to zero? Do you feel you’ve been betrayed? Or at least lied to? In the negotiation with Mexico does his “cave” make him the loser?

 

[Ponca Dan]

Let me make my position clear. I think if we shoot a few of them it would make a much bigger impact. So our starting point is the hypothetical max? Give me monthly illegal crossings over the last 3 years and I can give you a better answer.

That said, if Trump can reduce the number without giving up anything, good on him.

“If Trump can reduce the number,..” is such a tepid response. It’s so open-ended it could mean reduce by one person and Trump could claim he’s satisfied your demand. You make it way too easy for him. By this statement you are signaling him you support him no matter what. It implies your loyalty is with the man not the policy. Am I wrong to interpret it that way?

Another thing I might add. I don’t know what the numbers are or have been in the past, and I am too lazy to look it up. But I suspect the numbers before Trump made it a campaign issue in 2016 are less than they are now. If I’m right, why do you suppose that to be? Why did shining light on a problem and declaring it a crisis turn it from a problem and into a crisis so quickly? What caused the dam to break, do to speak? What incentivized Guatemalans and Hondurans to suddenly jump out of bed one morning and hit the road for the USA, when they knew they are not welcome and our president was doing everything he could to keep them out? Why are they giving him a tactical political victory with his base? He said there was a crisis when there wasn't one, but now, after all he’s supposedly done to end the crisis it’s worse than ever. Do you have any idea what’s causing it?

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

“If Trump can reduce the number,..” is such a tepid response. It’s so open-ended it could mean reduce by one person and Trump could claim he’s satisfied your demand. You make it way too easy for him. By this statement you are signaling him you support him no matter what. It implies your loyalty is with the man not the policy. Am I wrong to interpret it that way?

Yes and no.
I don’t blindly follow any politician but will give credit to the fist modern president to negotiate like I would if I was the leader of the biggest superpower in the history of civilization.

It takes awhile to turn a bloated, self serving oil tanker around. I’ll take both small and large victories. I set my standard at half for this battle hoping that we will eventually get to zero.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Yes and no.
I don’t blindly follow any politician but will give credit to the fist modern president to negotiate like I would if I was the leader of the biggest superpower in the history of civilization.

It takes awhile to turn a bloated, self serving oil tanker around. I’ll take both small and large victories. I set my standard at half for this battle hoping that we will eventually get to zero.

Well, once again thanks for playing. I was hoping some on this board would be willing to provide hard numbers. Then we could keep track and see what would be their reaction as the numbers approached what they hoped for, or if they would turn (ever so slightly) against Trump if they continued to be high.

I appreciate that you don’t blindly follow any politician, neither do I! I fear we are a small minority on this board, which sometimes makes it fun but more often makes it disheartening.

 

[iasooner1]

How about no more illegals period the remainder of this year and let the court system catch up with their case load, possibly resuming in 2020

 

[HighStickHarry]

Dan, Donald trump has made every attempt to secure the border. He has tried and tried and tried. We aren’t going to fault him when every other president and congressman has given away American territory to Central America for four decades. I support anything he does on this matter. It’s sad when you have to fight people tooth and nail for something as common sense as a border. It’s embarrassing that we have elected people who care more about exploiting cheap labor than they do about sabotaging our culture. You and the others should be ashamed of yourselves and not nit pick how trump makes the sausage.


I think I’m going to show up at your job sites and make it my goal in life that you don’t ever finish another project for the rest of your life. Let’s see how you handle your business with that head wind.

 

[Soonersincefitty]

This is my position too although I completely support legal immigration so long as the rules are reasonable. Libs would say legal immigration would entail filling out a form at the border and reciting Marx’s Communist Manifesto in Spanish.

Same here.
I mean, I'm not intractable about it.
Just bring something positive to our culture.
If not a marketable skill, how about a criminal record without any felonies?
Haysus Chryst man, any dysfunctional wombat can come and deplete our resources?
Someday, those resources will be gone.
Then what?

 

[iasooner1]

All the soy boys need this

 

[Ponca Dan]

Dan, Donald trump has made every attempt to secure the border. He has tried and tried and tried. We aren’t going to fault him when every other president and congressman has given away American territory to Central America for four decades. I support anything he does on this matter. It’s sad when you have to fight people tooth and nail for something as common sense as a border. It’s embarrassing that we have elected people who care more about exploiting cheap labor than they do about sabotaging our culture. You and the others should be ashamed of yourselves and not nit pick how trump makes the sausage.


I think I’m going to show up at your job sites and make it my goal in life that you don’t ever finish another project for the rest of your life. Let’s see how you handle your business with that head wind.

Wow, Harry, you packed a lot into two paragraphs. You say you support anything he does in this matter, and that’s fine. I think your are willingly being manipulated. If the link has any credibility I don’t see any other explanation. I won’t attempt to speak for the “others” but as for me I feel not the slightest shame in being against a policy I feel is inappropriate (the wall). It appears to me the Mexican tariff threat was nothing but a monumental con job, something in which Donald Trump excels. As far as your comment about “nit picking on how he makes the sausage” I would only reply that is my job - my duty! - as a sovereign citizen. It’s when citizens meekly accept bad policies that our republic will be in grave danger. You nit picked Obama’s policies, did you not? You cheered as Republicans threw up roadblocks every chance they got, right? Like Rush Limbaugh you wanted him to fail, correct? But now you object when I and others oppose your guy? That’s an inconsistent attitude.

Call me and I’ll tell you where our next job site will be. You can come on out and protest, and I’ll take you to lunch, my treat. I haven’t stopped Trump from doing one single thing he’s wanted to do, he blunders along in spite of my annoyance. That’s probably what will happen if you come to one of my jobs.

 

[CBradSmith]

Are you willing to even consider the master manipulator has struck again?


https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/


I ask: what will you consider a success? Trump said tariffs will be in effect until there were no more illegal immigrants storming our border. Yesterday when I enthusiastically praised him I was accused of being sarcastic, that no one actually believes the onslaught has been stopped. So, OK, Trump made a promise he didn’t really mean to keep, and you knew he didn’t mean to keep it all along, that it a super concentrated strategic chess move, and Mexico caved, you and Trump won, and you knew all along there would continue to be a flow of immigrants to our border, but now it will be seriously brought to a trickle. Trump and Mexico said so, so it must be true, right? Of course Trump hasn’t defined what the trickle will be, he’s left that up for you to decide. So: what will you consider the trickle will have to become to prove you and Trump knew what he was doing the whole time? Do you have a number in mind? Identify what will constitute victory! Inquiring minds want to know!

You postulate that people are being played.

What you don't do is show that you respect a fundamental difference of opinion on the underlying issue. You do this in most of your threads, and it results in a repetitive modus operandi where you turn into Preacher Dan... with the inevitable talking down to others. It seems you can't help yourself.

What you call "getting played" by you is called playing politics the right way by others. And if Trump moves the needle not insignificanly in a way that aligns with their preferred policy, then respect that.

Again, extend your fellow posters a little respect Preacher Dan.

 

[Ponca Dan]

You postulate that people are being played.

What you don't do is show that you respect a fundamental difference of opinion on the underlying issue. You do this in most of your threads, and it results in a repetitive modus operandi where you turn into Preacher Dan... with the inevitable talking down to others. It seems you can't help yourself.

What you call "getting played" by you is called playing politics the right way by others. And if Trump moves the needle not insignificanly in a way that aligns with their preferred policy, then respect that.

Again, extend your fellow posters a little respect Preacher Dan.

I believe I have shown considerably more respect toward opposing viewpoints than have you or many others on this board have shown to mine. I almost never revert to ad hominem or personal insults toward others, while it is quite commonly a tactic used against me. I generally do my best to keep on the topic and not attack what I may consider to be the character of my fellow conversant. Just yesterday, for example, I opined that political donors to Republicans are not absolutist free marketeers, and within one reply the conversation was diverted to another topic, complete with furious outrage.

For some reason that escapes me I am accused of being arrogant, lacking of humility, disrespectful, etc. when I attempt at every turn to answer questions or charges against me without similar vitriol. My style of responding seems to confuse many of you who have trained yourselves to be outraged at any opinion that does not comport to yours. I have spent over 50 years coming to political conclusions, and I’m not going to give them up without seeing reasoned counter arguments. Calling me names and just telling me I am wrong are not going to succeed in getting me to alter my opinion. I will respond to reasoned arguments with equally reasoned replies. In fact for the most part I have written in calm and measured tones even in the face of unwarranted hostility.

This is an unimportant board for people to express their political opinions. Absolutely nothing any of us says is going to alter the political landscape. There is absolutely no reason to get emotionally charged with one another. I don’t very often let things said on this board cause me to get angry. I rarely express anger at any individual. I usually keep my comments, links or posts to philosophical or political issues, but far more often than not the original intent gets diverted into something someone has managed to become outraged over.

You ask me to have a little introspection. Very well. I would suggest you do the same. There are many people with whom I have differing political opinions, and yet we remain friends. For some reason that is almost impossible on this board.

 

[CBradSmith]

I believe I have shown considerably more respect toward opposing viewpoints than have you or many others on this board have shown to mine. I almost never revert to ad hominem or personal insults toward others, while it is quite commonly a tactic used against me. I generally do my best to keep on the topic and not attack what I may consider to be the character of my fellow conversant. Just yesterday, for example, I opined that political donors to Republicans are not absolutist free marketeers, and within one reply the conversation was diverted to another topic, complete with furious outrage.

For some reason that escapes me I am accused of being arrogant, lacking of humility, disrespectful, etc. when I attempt at every turn to answer questions or charges against me without similar vitriol. My style of responding seems to confuse many of you who have trained yourselves to be outraged at any opinion that does not comport to yours. I have spent over 50 years coming to political conclusions, and I’m not going to give them up without seeing reasoned counter arguments. Calling me names and just telling me I am wrong are not going to succeed in getting me to alter my opinion. I will respond to reasoned arguments with equally reasoned replies. In fact for the most part I have written in calm and measured tones even in the face of unwarranted hostility.

This is an unimportant board for people to express their political opinions. Absolutely nothing any of us says is going to alter the political landscape. There is absolutely no reason to get emotionally charged with one another. I don’t very often let things said on this board cause me to get angry. I rarely express anger at any individual. I usually keep my comments, links or posts to philosophical or political issues, but far more often than not the original intent gets diverted into something someone has managed to become outraged over.

You ask me to have a little introspection. Very well. I would suggest you do the same. There are many people with whom I have differing political opinions, and yet we remain friends. For some reason that is almost impossible on this board.

You've come to a place where conservative, center, or Trump voters are informed on policy and politics.

Your usual methods of endless repetition and talking down to folks just arent persuasive.

You've yet to get back to me on how alternative sourcing or substitute goods and services blunt the severity of your tariff alarmism, though I've brought it up repeatedly and offered a helpful point in the right direction for educating yourself.

 

[JimmyBob]

For some reason that is almost impossible on this board.

It's ok, take the rest of the day off.

 

[aix_xpert]

Are you willing to even consider the master manipulator has struck again?


https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/


I ask: what will you consider a success? Trump said tariffs will be in effect until there were no more illegal immigrants storming our border. Yesterday when I enthusiastically praised him I was accused of being sarcastic, that no one actually believes the onslaught has been stopped. So, OK, Trump made a promise he didn’t really mean to keep, and you knew he didn’t mean to keep it all along, that it a super concentrated strategic chess move, and Mexico caved, you and Trump won, and you knew all along there would continue to be a flow of immigrants to our border, but now it will be seriously brought to a trickle. Trump and Mexico said so, so it must be true, right? Of course Trump hasn’t defined what the trickle will be, he’s left that up for you to decide. So: what will you consider the trickle will have to become to prove you and Trump knew what he was doing the whole time? Do you have a number in mind? Identify what will constitute victory! Inquiring minds want to know!

As was stated during the election (maybe on the Bill Maher show), Trump detractors take him literally but not seriously, whereas his supporters take him seriously but not literally. This clearly appears to be a case where you are taking his words too literal rather than simply judging the action for what it was, a legitimate attempt to address the illegal immigration problem that seems to have generated some positive traction.

 

[Syskatine]

I believe I have shown considerably more respect toward opposing viewpoints than have you or many others on this board have shown to mine. I almost never revert to ad hominem or personal insults toward others, while it is quite commonly a tactic used against me. I generally do my best to keep on the topic and not attack what I may consider to be the character of my fellow conversant. Just yesterday, for example, I opined that political donors to Republicans are not absolutist free marketeers, and within one reply the conversation was diverted to another topic, complete with furious outrage.

For some reason that escapes me I am accused of being arrogant, lacking of humility, disrespectful, etc. when I attempt at every turn to answer questions or charges against me without similar vitriol. My style of responding seems to confuse many of you who have trained yourselves to be outraged at any opinion that does not comport to yours. I have spent over 50 years coming to political conclusions, and I’m not going to give them up without seeing reasoned counter arguments. Calling me names and just telling me I am wrong are not going to succeed in getting me to alter my opinion. I will respond to reasoned arguments with equally reasoned replies. In fact for the most part I have written in calm and measured tones even in the face of unwarranted hostility.

This is an unimportant board for people to express their political opinions. Absolutely nothing any of us says is going to alter the political landscape. There is absolutely no reason to get emotionally charged with one another. I don’t very often let things said on this board cause me to get angry. I rarely express anger at any individual. I usually keep my comments, links or posts to philosophical or political issues, but far more often than not the original intent gets diverted into something someone has managed to become outraged over.

You ask me to have a little introspection. Very well. I would suggest you do the same. There are many people with whom I have differing political opinions, and yet we remain friends. For some reason that is almost impossible on this board.

Dan. Oh Dan. Dan, Dan, Dan. Danerooksi. Dan.

We've had our issues. Agree on..... not much. Don't really like the way each other thinks.

There. That's all I wanted to say. Have a good one.

I kid. But we don't agree on much. If the likelihood of a functioning culture or country materializing around anarcho-libertarian utopian whatever ideals is .01%, I'd place the likelihood of you getting something approaching an open-minded exchange with MAGA at about .0000000001%. Dude just told you his target was 50% reduction in some number. He has no idea what the number is but it needs reduced 50%.

 

[CBradSmith]

Dan. Oh Dan. Dan, Dan, Dan. Danerooksi. Dan.

We've had our issues. Agree on..... not much. Don't really like the way each other thinks.

There. That's all I wanted to say. Have a good one.

I kid. But we don't agree on much. If the likelihood of a functioning culture or country materializing around anarcho-libertarian utopian whatever ideals is .01%, I'd place the likelihood of you getting something approaching an open-minded exchange with MAGA at about .0000000001%. Dude just told you his target was 50% reduction in some number. He has no idea what the number is but it needs reduced 50%.

You're at your best self when you don't take yourself seriously.

 

[aliabedi]

https://qz.com/1525779/how-many-undocumented-immigrants-cross-the-border-with-mexico/

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

Surely everyone knows the Goat Herder began negotiations to get Mexico to relent on these immigration issues long before Trump came to office.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Are you willing to even consider the master manipulator has struck again?


https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/


I ask: what will you consider a success? Trump said tariffs will be in effect until there were no more illegal immigrants storming our border. Yesterday when I enthusiastically praised him I was accused of being sarcastic, that no one actually believes the onslaught has been stopped. So, OK, Trump made a promise he didn’t really mean to keep, and you knew he didn’t mean to keep it all along, that it a super concentrated strategic chess move, and Mexico caved, you and Trump won, and you knew all along there would continue to be a flow of immigrants to our border, but now it will be seriously brought to a trickle. Trump and Mexico said so, so it must be true, right? Of course Trump hasn’t defined what the trickle will be, he’s left that up for you to decide. So: what will you consider the trickle will have to become to prove you and Trump knew what he was doing the whole time? Do you have a number in mind? Identify what will constitute victory! Inquiring minds want to know!

Is is possible we've been played? Sure.
Is is possible you've way over reacted? Most assuredly.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

Dude just told you his target was 50% reduction in some number. He has no idea what the number is but it needs reduced 50%.

The number is 100. I want to reduce that by 50.

There is no way of knowing how many are coming across illegally. Hint: it's a lot. I was just playing Dan's game to make him happy. I'm a giver that way.

So I'm going with 50 less in 2020 than 2019. That's my final answer.

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.wash...-barcena-mexican-ambassador-denies-cbs-news-/

 

[Ponca Dan]

As was stated during the election (maybe on the Bill Maher show), Trump detractors take him literally but not seriously, whereas his supporters take him seriously but not literally. This clearly appears to be a case where you are taking his words too literal rather than simply judging the action for what it was, a legitimate attempt to address the illegal immigration problem that seems to have generated some positive traction.

Yes, I had heard that said about Trump before. In fact I think I've used it a time or two. In this instance I'm not sure it applies. It may be that Trump supporters have been duped into believing something about the man that is not true. The more I read about it the more I think Trump was playing with his supporters' emotions. To wit: apparently negotiations between Mexico and the US had been ongoing since December of last year, and the deal was finalized in March, and was awaiting implementation. Trump was well aware that the deal had been forged, but he chose at the last minute to "play hardball" with his public declaration of imposing tariffs, something that caught virtually his entire administration unawares. While I have doubts about the man's intelligence I don't think he's stupid, and, in fact he is a genius when it comes to being devious. He knew about the deal with Mexico, he knew tariffs with Mexico would be potentially deadly to the American economy and he knew his tariffs would scuttle the reworked NAFTA which is coming up for a vote. Yet he announced his tariffs in spite of all that. The question is: why would he do it?

Here's why I think he did it. He never had any intention of imposing the tariffs. He knew he would catch hell from all corners if he did it, and it could possibly ruin his chance for reelection if the tariffs caused a recession (which they probably would have done). He calculated that he could look tough on Mexico with his base, he could show them how hard he was trying to resolve the crisis, that Mexico would be so stunned they would run around like chickens with their heads cut off and at the last minute he could claim he had forced Mexico's hand, Mexico had capitulated, Trump had scored a huge victory in the face of all the Democrat and establishment Republican whining. And it was a remarkable success! Look at the reaction from the people on this board. They have fallen for it completely, not the slightest doubt that they were being suckered. Their resolve to vote for him again has been solidified beyond all measure, It was a political stroke of genius which in all likelihood will not amount to much by way of slowing the tide of immigrants, but he has enhanced his already godlike status with his base.

Earlier in this thread someone concluded I am charging a conspiracy was afoot. I am not. A conspiracy requires two or more actors to be involved. In this instance I think Trump was acting solely on his own. Really, I have to hand it to him, it was a brilliant tactical political move.

The original intent of this post was to get the always-Trumpsters to consider the possibility he was suckering them. Obviously it was a bad idea. The always-Trumpsters will never doubt the man.

 

[SoonerRedYukon101]

Yes, I had heard that said about Trump before. In fact I think I've used it a time or two. In this instance I'm not sure it applies. It may be that Trump supporters have been duped into believing something about the man that is not true. The more I read about it the more I think Trump was playing with his supporters' emotions. To wit: apparently negotiations between Mexico and the US had been ongoing since December of last year, and the deal was finalized in March, and was awaiting implementation. Trump was well aware that the deal had been forged, but he chose at the last minute to "play hardball" with his public declaration of imposing tariffs, something that caught virtually his entire administration unawares. While I have doubts about the man's intelligence I don't think he's stupid, and, in fact he is a genius when it comes to being devious. He knew about the deal with Mexico, he knew tariffs with Mexico would be potentially deadly to the American economy and he knew his tariffs would scuttle the reworked NAFTA which is coming up for a vote. Yet he announced his tariffs in spite of all that. The question is: why would he do it?

Here's why I think he did it. He never had any intention of imposing the tariffs. He knew he would catch hell from all corners if he did it, and it could possibly ruin his chance for reelection if the tariffs caused a recession (which they probably would have done). He calculated that he could look tough on Mexico with his base, he could show them how hard he was trying to resolve the crisis, that Mexico would be so stunned they would run around like chickens with their heads cut off and at the last minute he could claim he had forced Mexico's hand, Mexico had capitulated, Trump had scored a huge victory in the face of all the Democrat and establishment Republican whining. And it was a remarkable success! Look at the reaction from the people on this board. They have fallen for it completely, not the slightest doubt that they were being suckered. Their resolve to vote for him again has been solidified beyond all measure, It was a political stroke of genius which in all likelihood will not amount to much by way of slowing the tide of immigrants, but he has enhanced his already godlike status with his base.

Earlier in this thread someone concluded I am charging a conspiracy was afoot. I am not. A conspiracy requires two or more actors to be involved. In this instance I think Trump was acting solely on his own. Really, I have to hand it to him, it was a brilliant tactical political move.

The original intent of this post was to get the always-Trumpsters to consider the possibility he was suckering them. Obviously it was a bad idea. The always-Trumpsters will never doubt the man.

You cited that this deal was finalized in March of this year. Would you please provide your source for that?

 

[aix_xpert]

You cited that this deal was finalized in March of this year. Would you please provide your source for that?

The reworked NAFTA agreement was supposedly finalized at that point. However, I think that misses the larger scope of immigration concessions that supposedly have been agreed to upon the latest 'tariff' threat, such as the 6k soldiers to provide greater support at Mexico's southern border.

 

[SoonerRedYukon101]

The reworked NAFTA agreement was supposedly finalized at that point. However, I think that misses the larger scope of immigration concessions that supposedly have been agreed to upon the latest 'tariff' threat, such as the 6k soldiers to provide greater support at Mexico's southern border.

Thank you.

 

[CBradSmith]

Yes, I had heard that said about Trump before. In fact I think I've used it a time or two. In this instance I'm not sure it applies. It may be that Trump supporters have been duped into believing something about the man that is not true. The more I read about it the more I think Trump was playing with his supporters' emotions. To wit: apparently negotiations between Mexico and the US had been ongoing since December of last year, and the deal was finalized in March, and was awaiting implementation. Trump was well aware that the deal had been forged, but he chose at the last minute to "play hardball" with his public declaration of imposing tariffs, something that caught virtually his entire administration unawares. While I have doubts about the man's intelligence I don't think he's stupid, and, in fact he is a genius when it comes to being devious. He knew about the deal with Mexico, he knew tariffs with Mexico would be potentially deadly to the American economy and he knew his tariffs would scuttle the reworked NAFTA which is coming up for a vote. Yet he announced his tariffs in spite of all that. The question is: why would he do it?

Here's why I think he did it. He never had any intention of imposing the tariffs. He knew he would catch hell from all corners if he did it, and it could possibly ruin his chance for reelection if the tariffs caused a recession (which they probably would have done). He calculated that he could look tough on Mexico with his base, he could show them how hard he was trying to resolve the crisis, that Mexico would be so stunned they would run around like chickens with their heads cut off and at the last minute he could claim he had forced Mexico's hand, Mexico had capitulated, Trump had scored a huge victory in the face of all the Democrat and establishment Republican whining. And it was a remarkable success! Look at the reaction from the people on this board. They have fallen for it completely, not the slightest doubt that they were being suckered. Their resolve to vote for him again has been solidified beyond all measure, It was a political stroke of genius which in all likelihood will not amount to much by way of slowing the tide of immigrants, but he has enhanced his already godlike status with his base.

Earlier in this thread someone concluded I am charging a conspiracy was afoot. I am not. A conspiracy requires two or more actors to be involved. In this instance I think Trump was acting solely on his own. Really, I have to hand it to him, it was a brilliant tactical political move.

The original intent of this post was to get the always-Trumpsters to consider the possibility he was suckering them. Obviously it was a bad idea. The always-Trumpsters will never doubt the man.

This is rife with generalizations, assumptions, projections, and an insinuation that Trump supporters are stupid, fine being "played," or not independent minded (which falls under the aforementioned assumptions or projections).

I take the time to respond to you helpfully, because you don't seem bent like @Syskatine or @Pokeabear . They display characteristics that make dialogue pretty worthless. But your level of projection is inching you toward their bucket.

If your hope is to edify, I'd encourage you be more judicious with your choice of words and what you allow yourself to believe about other posters here.

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

Some undeniable truths: Trump is not a plantation cracker. Black Americans, Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans are seeing the lowest unemployment numbers since records have been kept.

I've never seen such smiles down on 11th Street. Pastor Scott says Trump may be best president for black America in his life time. The Latinos over at D. R. Horton are always too busy to stop and chat.

And yes, I plan to vote for "racist" Trump again.