ChatterBank0 min ago
No Wall, No Deal,
During an interview broadcast on Thursday’s edition of the Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Vice President Mike Pence declared that “We will have no deal without a wall.”
Pence said, "The president’s made it clear, we’re here to make a deal. But it’s a deal that’s going to result in achieving real gains on border security, and you have no border security without the wall. We will have no deal without a wall. The president’s made it very clear, no wall, no deal.”
Will Trump get his way?
Pence said, "The president’s made it clear, we’re here to make a deal. But it’s a deal that’s going to result in achieving real gains on border security, and you have no border security without the wall. We will have no deal without a wall. The president’s made it very clear, no wall, no deal.”
Will Trump get his way?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Who is "we" in this context?
If by "we" you mean the UK (re: Brexit), then I am not sure that we should be looking to the current US Congress/President for negotiating tips, since the entire conversation runs:
President: "Give me money for the wall."
Congress: "No."
President: "Give me money for the wall."
Congress: "No."
President: "Give me money for the wall."
Congress: "No."
President: "Give me money for the wall."
Congress: "No."
President: "Give me money for the wall."
Congress: "No."
President: "Give me money for the wall."
Congress: "No."
& c., & c.
If by "we" you mean the UK (re: Brexit), then I am not sure that we should be looking to the current US Congress/President for negotiating tips, since the entire conversation runs:
President: "Give me money for the wall."
Congress: "No."
President: "Give me money for the wall."
Congress: "No."
President: "Give me money for the wall."
Congress: "No."
President: "Give me money for the wall."
Congress: "No."
President: "Give me money for the wall."
Congress: "No."
President: "Give me money for the wall."
Congress: "No."
& c., & c.
"in terms of popular support, the Democrats have a more significant mandate than the President does"
Ah, that old chestnut. The Dems gave The Donald the presidency and still dont get it.
In a way I hope the POTUS doesn't win as it will be used against the dems in the next election and since they still have not done any work on building a new presidential candidate, they will loose again.
Ah, that old chestnut. The Dems gave The Donald the presidency and still dont get it.
In a way I hope the POTUS doesn't win as it will be used against the dems in the next election and since they still have not done any work on building a new presidential candidate, they will loose again.
I was thinking more about the recent Midterms, YMB, where Democrats took control of the House of Representatives (the effective equivalent of the House of Commons) by a hefty margin. As it happens, the result in 2016 is also vaguely relevant -- the simple fact is that the US President has only ever appealed to a minority -- but it's possible to ignore that and *still* claim, quite correctly, that the Democrats have a mandate to deny the President funding for his wall.
Neither side can really afford to back down. Well, more accurately, Trump *could* have backed down earlier, and probably nobody would have really noticed (least of all his core support). But now he can't. The catch about trying to be a strongman is that *any* sign of weakness destroys that image. Better to be a sensible leader, and accept that there is no support for the wall but still a mandate for other of his policies.
Oh, and in any case, unless people forgot, the Mexicans were going to pay for the wall anyway. So why does he need the US to pay for it?
Neither side can really afford to back down. Well, more accurately, Trump *could* have backed down earlier, and probably nobody would have really noticed (least of all his core support). But now he can't. The catch about trying to be a strongman is that *any* sign of weakness destroys that image. Better to be a sensible leader, and accept that there is no support for the wall but still a mandate for other of his policies.
Oh, and in any case, unless people forgot, the Mexicans were going to pay for the wall anyway. So why does he need the US to pay for it?
Well, you can be. That's how the Electoral College works -- indeed, if anything, that is how it was designed. A president can win the Electoral College even if he receives only around a quarter of the popular vote. Admittedly this would be in a highly extreme case, and it's more likely to happen on, say, a 45/55 split at most -- but it can, and does, happen that the winning President has a minority of the public backing him.
I wish I understood what you were going on about. Trump won 42% of the popular vote, and Clinton won 45%. Which of those two numbers is smaller? It's not a "lefty agenda" to point out how arithmetic works. The US system is broken, and that has been true not because Donald Trump won but because it is broken by design. If Clinton had won I would have been pointing out the same thing -- I can quite happily prove that by citing old AB posts, if you like.
Oh, and while we are at it, let's get any (entirely wrongly) alleged, hypocrisy into perspective: In 2012, in the wake of Obama's second victory, it looked briefly like Obama was going to be the one winning the presidency but losing the popular vote. Trump's response?
https:/
In the event, it turned out that Obama won both College and popular vote, so Trump's reaction was based on flawed data. Now, Trump actually *did* pull off that trick. Let's see what he's said about the Electoral College since then, shall we?
https:/
https:/
https:/
In the event, it turned out that Obama won both College and popular vote, so Trump's reaction was based on flawed data. Now, Trump actually *did* pull off that trick. Let's see what he's said about the Electoral College since then, shall we?
https:/
https:/
jim; Trump never backs down, he is a street fighter who has to win, and I'm sure one way or the other, he will get his wall, and if it's statistics you want, you should look at how many US citizens want a stop to illegal immigration, and for that there needs to be a wall.
I read somewhere that Army vets are starting a crowd-funding project to help pay for it too.
I read somewhere that Army vets are starting a crowd-funding project to help pay for it too.
