Stupid Things Ocasio-Cortez Says: Megathread

[89Hen]

And I've now seen a sitting congresswoman with a degree in economics who thinks that NY has $3 Billion just sitting around and was going to write a check to Amazon for their tax incentives but thinks that instead they should use that $3 Billion to help subsidize nonworkers....like there's just $3 billion sitting there, waiting to be used. #dumberthanaboxofrocks

But as Cleets said... that's nothing new. I remember when DC was looking to build Nationals Park many on the City Council said they should spend the money on schools or welfare, not realizing that spending the money on the ballpark would be an investment with direct returns. The area surrounding Nats Park is now worth hundreds of millions of dollars generating tax revenue that didn't exist before. There's no helping some folks. IIRC the Council barely passed the legislation that allowed the Nats to come to DC.

[CID1990]

But can she double-down on her stupidity in the face of overwhelmingly negative feedback from the American people, her own party, and all of our traditional allies. That's the current benchmark.

a 70 year old man grabbing 18 year old girls pussies in his own perverted beauty pageant
telling the world that climate change is a Chinese hoax being perpetrated on America
announcing that Mexico will pay for the wall
telling everybody that you're smarter than your Military Generals on the ground
and announcing that Russian intelligence is more reliable and trustworthy than the CIA

can she go THAT FAR to win an election and sway the masses

who knows..?

You guys are focusing on the wrong kinds of stupidity

Her seat can literally go away when NY re-districts

And the people who will have the ability to do that are the same establishment Dems her coalition is targeting for primaries- in fact she may have already tipped the scales

Redistricting happens in 2 years and NY is losing 2 House seats - both almost certainly from NYC districts




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

You are correct, and I should add that people are more easily fooled today than ever. It's kind of crazy to think that as knowledge has gotten easier to access, people have actually gotten more ignorant.

It makes me start to believe the teaching methods we used to have. In college, for the life of me I didn't understand why I needed to take a foreign language to earn a degree in Geography. I was told that it wasn't the language itself that was important, but it was that the learning process of languages was different and therefore an integral part of overall education.

As we use and rely on things like spell/grammar check, smart phones, voice to text, audio books, self-driving cars... I think the average person is becoming less and less intelligent. I've met with college grads who can't do simple math in their head or understand what should be simple financial concepts. I swear it won't be far before...

And I've now seen a sitting congresswoman with a degree in economics who thinks that NY has $3 Billion just sitting around and was going to write a check to Amazon for their tax incentives but thinks that instead they should use that $3 Billion to help subsidize nonworkers....like there's just $3 billion sitting there, waiting to be used. #dumberthanaboxofrocks

Are you talking about WALL MONEY just sitting around..?



Everybody wants what they want
and everybody else wants something else

its a hell of a conundrum really

[CID1990]

You are correct, and I should add that people are more easily fooled today than ever. It's kind of crazy to think that as knowledge has gotten easier to access, people have actually gotten more ignorant.

It makes me start to believe the teaching methods we used to have. In college, for the life of me I didn't understand why I needed to take a foreign language to earn a degree in Geography. I was told that it wasn't the language itself that was important, but it was that the learning process of languages was different and therefore an integral part of overall education.

As we use and rely on things like spell/grammar check, smart phones, voice to text, audio books, self-driving cars... I think the average person is becoming less and less intelligent. I've met with college grads who can't do simple math in their head or understand what should be simple financial concepts. I swear it won't be far before...

And I've now seen a sitting congresswoman with a degree in economics who thinks that NY has $3 Billion just sitting around and was going to write a check to Amazon for their tax incentives but thinks that instead they should use that $3 Billion to help subsidize nonworkers....like there's just $3 billion sitting there, waiting to be used. #dumberthanaboxofrocks

That’s true - she’s just about as knowledgeable as most of the twentysomething bartenders I’ve known

But we also actually have a dude in the White House right now who thinks Mexico has several billion lying around - that they’d happily hand over- for a wall

Let’s face it - high public office is not a place for serious people

Orange Man Drumpf and Pixie Dust Cortez are the exemplars of our typical leaders moving forward

we all get to choose our brand of stupid


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

And I've now seen a sitting congresswoman with a degree in economics who thinks that NY has $3 Billion just sitting around and was going to write a check to Amazon for their tax incentives but thinks that instead they should use that $3 Billion to help subsidize nonworkers....like there's just $3 billion sitting there, waiting to be used. #dumberthanaboxofrocks

That’s true - she’s just about as knowledgeable as most of the twentysomething bartenders I’ve known

But we also actually have a dude in the White House right now who thinks Mexico has several billion lying around - that they’d happily hand over- for a wall

Let’s face it - high public office is not a place for serious people

Orange Man Drumpf and Pixie Dust Cortez are the exemplars of our typical leaders moving forward

we all get to choose our brand of stupid


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

During the campaign I don’t think Trump thought Mexico was going to directly pay for a wall. He probably thought that renegotiating NAFTA would produce (insert x # of billions $$) over (insert x # of years) in savings to our economy or securing our border would produce (insert x # of billions $$) over (insert x # of years) savings to our economy, but in today’s campaign slogan, twitter age, that’s too much nuance, and just doesn’t sound as good as “We’re going to build a wall and Mexico’s going to pay for it!” I think the plan all along probably was he would later claim the billion in savings meant Mexico was indirectly paying for it.

[Chizzang]

That’s true - she’s just about as knowledgeable as most of the twentysomething bartenders I’ve known

But we also actually have a dude in the White House right now who thinks Mexico has several billion lying around - that they’d happily hand over- for a wall

Let’s face it - high public office is not a place for serious people

Orange Man Drumpf and Pixie Dust Cortez are the exemplars of our typical leaders moving forward

we all get to choose our brand of stupid


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

During the campaign I don’t think Trump thought Mexico was going to directly pay for a wall. He probably thought that renegotiating NAFTA would produce (insert x # of billions $$) over (insert x # of years) in savings to our economy or securing our border would produce (insert x # of billions $$) over (insert x # of years) savings to our economy, but in today’s campaign slogan, twitter age, that’s too much nuance, and just doesn’t sound as good as “We’re going to build a wall and Mexico’s going to pay for it!” I think the plan all along probably was he would later claim the billion in savings meant Mexico was indirectly paying for it.

This ^ is called "new apologetics"

When somebody (typically a cult figure)
makes a false or misleading claim supported by little to no information
that is then vigorously defended by the indoctrinated
who studiously apply additional erroneous information
or whatever else is necessary
to prove the false statement
is now somehow "correct"

[Skjellyfetti]

That’s true - she’s just about as knowledgeable as most of the twentysomething bartenders I’ve known

But we also actually have a dude in the White House right now who thinks Mexico has several billion lying around - that they’d happily hand over- for a wall

Let’s face it - high public office is not a place for serious people

Orange Man Drumpf and Pixie Dust Cortez are the exemplars of our typical leaders moving forward

we all get to choose our brand of stupid


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

During the campaign I don’t think Trump thought Mexico was going to directly pay for a wall. He probably thought that renegotiating NAFTA would produce (insert x # of billions $$) over (insert x # of years) in savings to our economy or securing our border would produce (insert x # of billions $$) over (insert x # of years) savings to our economy, but in today’s campaign slogan, twitter age, that’s too much nuance, and just doesn’t sound as good as “We’re going to build a wall and Mexico’s going to pay for it!” I think the plan all along probably was he would later claim the billion in savings meant Mexico was indirectly paying for it.

The plan from his campaign is still on the website.

It was a one time payment of $5-$10 billion dollars. It wasn't indirectly "paying" it.

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Pay_for_the_Wall.pdf



But, I admire your effort.

[Ivytalk]

During the campaign I don’t think Trump thought Mexico was going to directly pay for a wall. He probably thought that renegotiating NAFTA would produce (insert x # of billions $$) over (insert x # of years) in savings to our economy or securing our border would produce (insert x # of billions $$) over (insert x # of years) savings to our economy, but in today’s campaign slogan, twitter age, that’s too much nuance, and just doesn’t sound as good as “We’re going to build a wall and Mexico’s going to pay for it!” I think the plan all along probably was he would later claim the billion in savings meant Mexico was indirectly paying for it.

This ^ is called "new apologetics"

When somebody (typically a cult figure)
makes a false or misleading claim supported by little to no information
that is then vigorously defended by the indoctrinated
who studiously apply additional erroneous information
or whatever else is necessary
to prove the false statement
is now somehow "correct"

“New apologetics” has a nice ring to it.

Think I’ll borrow it from time to time.

[JohnStOnge]

And I've now seen a sitting congresswoman with a degree in economics who thinks that NY has $3 Billion just sitting around and was going to write a check to Amazon for their tax incentives but thinks that instead they should use that $3 Billion to help subsidize nonworkers....like there's just $3 billion sitting there, waiting to be used. #dumberthanaboxofrocks

But as Cleets said... that's nothing new. I remember when DC was looking to build Nationals Park many on the City Council said they should spend the money on schools or welfare, not realizing that spending the money on the ballpark would be an investment with direct returns. The area surrounding Nats Park is now worth hundreds of millions of dollars generating tax revenue that didn't exist before. There's no helping some folks. IIRC the Council barely passed the legislation that allowed the Nats to come to DC.

We're swerving off topic but I went through a big thing of looking at economic analysis on States giving tax breaks and subsidies to sports franchises for stadiums some years back and came away thinking it's not a good investment. Here's one recent discussion that is similar to things I read back when I was looking into it (because Louisiana was subsidizing upgrades for the Saints):

https://research.stlouisfed.org/publica ... -stadiums/

In spite of all of these economic arguments, economists generally oppose subsidizing professional sports stadiums. When surveyed, 86 percent of economists agreed that "local and state governments in the U.S. should eliminate subsidies to professional sports franchises." Perhaps economists just do not like sports? Actually, many economists love professional sports—including former Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke, an ardent Washington Nationals fan. Rather, it is the provision of taxpayer money in the form of subsidies that economists generally oppose. In a 2017 poll, 83 percent of the economists surveyed agreed that "Providing state and local subsidies to build stadiums for professional sports teams is likely to cost the relevant taxpayers more than any local economic benefits that are generated."

[JohnStOnge]

During the campaign I don’t think Trump thought Mexico was going to directly pay for a wall. He probably thought that renegotiating NAFTA would produce (insert x # of billions $$) over (insert x # of years) in savings to our economy or securing our border would produce (insert x # of billions $$) over (insert x # of years) savings to our economy, but in today’s campaign slogan, twitter age, that’s too much nuance, and just doesn’t sound as good as “We’re going to build a wall and Mexico’s going to pay for it!” I think the plan all along probably was he would later claim the billion in savings meant Mexico was indirectly paying for it.

I hope you're kidding.

[AZGrizFan]

And I've now seen a sitting congresswoman with a degree in economics who thinks that NY has $3 Billion just sitting around and was going to write a check to Amazon for their tax incentives but thinks that instead they should use that $3 Billion to help subsidize nonworkers....like there's just $3 billion sitting there, waiting to be used. #dumberthanaboxofrocks

Are you talking about WALL MONEY just sitting around..?



Everybody wants what they want
and everybody else wants something else

its a hell of a conundrum really

Wall money IS just sitting around. In El Chappo’s account.

[AZGrizFan]

But as Cleets said... that's nothing new. I remember when DC was looking to build Nationals Park many on the City Council said they should spend the money on schools or welfare, not realizing that spending the money on the ballpark would be an investment with direct returns. The area surrounding Nats Park is now worth hundreds of millions of dollars generating tax revenue that didn't exist before. There's no helping some folks. IIRC the Council barely passed the legislation that allowed the Nats to come to DC.

We're swerving off topic but I went through a big thing of looking at economic analysis on States giving tax breaks and subsidies to sports franchises for stadiums some years back and came away thinking it's not a good investment. Here's one recent discussion that is similar to things I read back when I was looking into it (because Louisiana was subsidizing upgrades for the Saints):

https://research.stlouisfed.org/publica ... -stadiums/

In spite of all of these economic arguments, economists generally oppose subsidizing professional sports stadiums. When surveyed, 86 percent of economists agreed that "local and state governments in the U.S. should eliminate subsidies to professional sports franchises." Perhaps economists just do not like sports? Actually, many economists love professional sports—including former Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke, an ardent Washington Nationals fan. Rather, it is the provision of taxpayer money in the form of subsidies that economists generally oppose. In a 2017 poll, 83 percent of the economists surveyed agreed that "Providing state and local subsidies to build stadiums for professional sports teams is likely to cost the relevant taxpayers more than any local economic benefits that are generated."

Using Bernanke as your economist of choice does NOT help your argument. Phoenix has very similar photos of what the warehouse district looked like before and after Chase Field & America West Arena were built. It’s a thriving, bustling Southtown now, whereas before it was crackhead central. Best money the taxpayers ever spent. Then they went and added a light rail and fucked the whole thing up.

[CID1990]

That’s true - she’s just about as knowledgeable as most of the twentysomething bartenders I’ve known

But we also actually have a dude in the White House right now who thinks Mexico has several billion lying around - that they’d happily hand over- for a wall

Let’s face it - high public office is not a place for serious people

Orange Man Drumpf and Pixie Dust Cortez are the exemplars of our typical leaders moving forward

we all get to choose our brand of stupid


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

During the campaign I don’t think Trump thought Mexico was going to directly pay for a wall. He probably thought that renegotiating NAFTA would produce (insert x # of billions $$) over (insert x # of years) in savings to our economy or securing our border would produce (insert x # of billions $$) over (insert x # of years) savings to our economy, but in today’s campaign slogan, twitter age, that’s too much nuance, and just doesn’t sound as good as “We’re going to build a wall and Mexico’s going to pay for it!” I think the plan all along probably was he would later claim the billion in savings meant Mexico was indirectly paying for it.

Yes yes I know

And in fact, I'm sure that is probably what he was thinking, since he above all others knows that money is a shell game.. to be played with, hidden, and called something other than money when the wrong people are looking

But he packaged it and sold it at his rallies as "Mexico will pay for it" without elaboration - because like populists on both the left and the right, he knew that he couldn't break out his graph chart and explain it .... so he put it together in a way people who he has little respect of amity for would understand

I don't feel the need to paraphrase or explain Trump - he and every other populist politician have been explained over the years already - ad nauseum.... if he renegotiates NAFTA and recoups an actual 10 billion dollars in GDP, he still has to go through Congress for the money - and he has, in his own lovable way made damn sure that they will say, in exactly Nancy Pelosi's words, "NO WALL, NO DISCUSSION"

But yeah that NAFTA renegotiation is great

And a couple good jurists on the SCOTUS

[Ibanez]

You are correct, and I should add that people are more easily fooled today than ever. It's kind of crazy to think that as knowledge has gotten easier to access, people have actually gotten more ignorant.

It makes me start to believe the teaching methods we used to have. In college, for the life of me I didn't understand why I needed to take a foreign language to earn a degree in Geography. I was told that it wasn't the language itself that was important, but it was that the learning process of languages was different and therefore an integral part of overall education.

As we use and rely on things like spell/grammar check, smart phones, voice to text, audio books, self-driving cars... I think the average person is becoming less and less intelligent. I've met with college grads who can't do simple math in their head or understand what should be simple financial concepts. I swear it won't be far before...

And I've now seen a sitting congresswoman with a degree in economics who thinks that NY has $3 Billion just sitting around and was going to write a check to Amazon for their tax incentives but thinks that instead they should use that $3 Billion to help subsidize nonworkers....like there's just $3 billion sitting there, waiting to be used. #dumberthanaboxofrocks

She didn't really say that did she?! I haven't read about her and the Amazon deal but that's just ridiculous. Paying people not to work has zero merit.


Like I've said counltess times here - She's a freshman and Pelosi sin't going to give her too much slack. She'll be used for fundraising.


But..you have to hand it to her. Her presence in the HoR is what's great about our country. The people she represents wanted a change, they voted for change. AOC is 1 of 435 people. I'm not saying 1 person can't make a difference, but the HoR is where the craziest of ideas can go and get shot down. Who knows - she might be voted out in a couple of years.

[kalm]

During the campaign I don’t think Trump thought Mexico was going to directly pay for a wall. He probably thought that renegotiating NAFTA would produce (insert x # of billions $$) over (insert x # of years) in savings to our economy or securing our border would produce (insert x # of billions $$) over (insert x # of years) savings to our economy, but in today’s campaign slogan, twitter age, that’s too much nuance, and just doesn’t sound as good as “We’re going to build a wall and Mexico’s going to pay for it!” I think the plan all along probably was he would later claim the billion in savings meant Mexico was indirectly paying for it.

Yes yes I know

And in fact, I'm sure that is probably what he was thinking, since he above all others knows that money is a shell game.. to be played with, hidden, and called something other than money when the wrong people are looking

But he packaged it and sold it at his rallies as "Mexico will pay for it" without elaboration - because like populists on both the left and the right, he knew that he couldn't break out his graph chart and explain it .... so he put it together in a way people who he has little respect of amity for would understand

I don't feel the need to paraphrase or explain Trump - he and every other populist politician have been explained over the years already - ad nauseum.... if he renegotiates NAFTA and recoups an actual 10 billion dollars in GDP, he still has to go through Congress for the money - and he has, in his own lovable way made damn sure that they will say, in exactly Nancy Pelosi's words, "NO WALL, NO DISCUSSION"

But yeah that NAFTA renegotiation is great

And a couple good jurists on the SCOTUS

So it depends on what your definition of “pay for it” is.

It’s a nuanced form of funding.

[Ibanez]

That’s true - she’s just about as knowledgeable as most of the twentysomething bartenders I’ve known

But we also actually have a dude in the White House right now who thinks Mexico has several billion lying around - that they’d happily hand over- for a wall

Let’s face it - high public office is not a place for serious people

Orange Man Drumpf and Pixie Dust Cortez are the exemplars of our typical leaders moving forward

we all get to choose our brand of stupid


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

During the campaign I don’t think Trump thought Mexico was going to directly pay for a wall. He probably thought that renegotiating NAFTA would produce (insert x # of billions $$) over (insert x # of years) in savings to our economy or securing our border would produce (insert x # of billions $$) over (insert x # of years) savings to our economy, but in today’s campaign slogan, twitter age, that’s too much nuance, and just doesn’t sound as good as “We’re going to build a wall and Mexico’s going to pay for it!” I think the plan all along probably was he would later claim the billion in savings meant Mexico was indirectly paying for it.

That's a very valid point. In a campaign you DO have to boil down things. Saying Mexico will pay for a wall was just a dumb campaign lie. Obviously they'll never pay for a wall. Directly or Indirectly. That isn't how our country works. Revenue from a trade deal isn't appropriated that way. The trade deal won't say, " the first $1 from all Mexico manufactured cars will go into a Wall Fund."

And if that's your excuse - then there as too much nuance that lead to " If you like your doctor, you can keep him." Obviously he meant, you can keep your doctor unless the insurance plan is no longer accepted at your doctors office or any other number of valid explanations.

[Ibanez]

During the campaign I don’t think Trump thought Mexico was going to directly pay for a wall. He probably thought that renegotiating NAFTA would produce (insert x # of billions $$) over (insert x # of years) in savings to our economy or securing our border would produce (insert x # of billions $$) over (insert x # of years) savings to our economy, but in today’s campaign slogan, twitter age, that’s too much nuance, and just doesn’t sound as good as “We’re going to build a wall and Mexico’s going to pay for it!” I think the plan all along probably was he would later claim the billion in savings meant Mexico was indirectly paying for it.

Yes yes I know

And in fact, I'm sure that is probably what he was thinking, since he above all others knows that money is a shell game.. to be played with, hidden, and called something other than money when the wrong people are looking

But he packaged it and sold it at his rallies as "Mexico will pay for it" without elaboration - because like populists on both the left and the right, he knew that he couldn't break out his graph chart and explain it .... so he put it together in a way people who he has little respect of amity for would understand

I don't feel the need to paraphrase or explain Trump - he and every other populist politician have been explained over the years already - ad nauseum.... if he renegotiates NAFTA and recoups an actual 10 billion dollars in GDP, he still has to go through Congress for the money - and he has, in his own lovable way made damn sure that they will say, in exactly Nancy Pelosi's words, "NO WALL, NO DISCUSSION"

But yeah that NAFTA renegotiation is great

And a couple good jurists on the SCOTUS

Truth be told - i'm not unhappy with the tax cut. I got a little more more money in my paycheck AND I didn't owe the Gov't money this year. In fact, I got a little bit back.

The various trade deals NEEDED to be updated. They were decades old and don't take into account changes in policy, manufacturing, economics or technology. His style is garbage, that's painfully obvious. But trade deals should've been tweaked. And if Congress passes his trade deal - then let's not forget to revisit in in 5 or 10 years to make sure it's still beneficial. - AZ is going to hate me for saying that. He thinks i'm some bleeding heart liberal.

[AZGrizFan]

The various trade deals NEEDED to be updated. They were decades old and don't take into account changes in policy, manufacturing, economics or technology. His style is garbage, that's painfully obvious. But trade deals should've been tweaked. And if Congress passes his trade deal - then let's not forget to revisit in in 5 or 10 years to make sure it's still beneficial. - AZ is going to hate me for saying that. He thinks i'm some bleeding heart liberal.

Why would I hate you for saying that? EVERYTHING should be revised to ensure its doing what it was designed to do.

And you are what you are.

[Ibanez]

The various trade deals NEEDED to be updated. They were decades old and don't take into account changes in policy, manufacturing, economics or technology. His style is garbage, that's painfully obvious. But trade deals should've been tweaked. And if Congress passes his trade deal - then let's not forget to revisit in in 5 or 10 years to make sure it's still beneficial. - AZ is going to hate me for saying that. He thinks i'm some bleeding heart liberal.

Why would I hate you for saying that? EVERYTHING should be revised to ensure its doing what it was designed to do.

And you are what you are.

A pragmatic person that is more libertarian than anything else.

[89Hen]

We're swerving off topic but I went through a big thing of looking at economic analysis on States giving tax breaks and subsidies to sports franchises for stadiums some years back and came away thinking it's not a good investment.

FWIW, the case of the Nationals was a little different because we didn't have baseball at all. I can see where paying for a new stadium for an existing team is probably not as beneficial.

[CAA Flagship]

We're swerving off topic but I went through a big thing of looking at economic analysis on States giving tax breaks and subsidies to sports franchises for stadiums some years back and came away thinking it's not a good investment.

FWIW, the case of the Nationals was a little different because we didn't have baseball at all. I can see where paying for a new stadium for an existing team is probably not as beneficial.

Another example is where upgrades need to be made to an existing stadium/arena and the taxpayers are asked to pay for it. The upgrades might be things to keep up with the other stadiums/arenas in the league. The idea being that the upgrades will make them competitive with other bidders for events, help them maintain attendance with new amenities, or increased revenue opportunities.
St. Louis is going through this with the Enterprise Center (Home of the Blues).

[AZGrizFan]

We're swerving off topic but I went through a big thing of looking at economic analysis on States giving tax breaks and subsidies to sports franchises for stadiums some years back and came away thinking it's not a good investment.

FWIW, the case of the Nationals was a little different because we didn't have baseball at all. I can see where paying for a new stadium for an existing team is probably not as beneficial.

Same with AZ.

[CID1990]

Yes yes I know

And in fact, I'm sure that is probably what he was thinking, since he above all others knows that money is a shell game.. to be played with, hidden, and called something other than money when the wrong people are looking

But he packaged it and sold it at his rallies as "Mexico will pay for it" without elaboration - because like populists on both the left and the right, he knew that he couldn't break out his graph chart and explain it .... so he put it together in a way people who he has little respect of amity for would understand

I don't feel the need to paraphrase or explain Trump - he and every other populist politician have been explained over the years already - ad nauseum.... if he renegotiates NAFTA and recoups an actual 10 billion dollars in GDP, he still has to go through Congress for the money - and he has, in his own lovable way made damn sure that they will say, in exactly Nancy Pelosi's words, "NO WALL, NO DISCUSSION"

But yeah that NAFTA renegotiation is great

And a couple good jurists on the SCOTUS

So it depends on what your definition of “pay for it” is.

It’s a nuanced form of funding.

Hasn’t that been the topic all along?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Yes yes I know

And in fact, I'm sure that is probably what he was thinking, since he above all others knows that money is a shell game.. to be played with, hidden, and called something other than money when the wrong people are looking

But he packaged it and sold it at his rallies as "Mexico will pay for it" without elaboration - because like populists on both the left and the right, he knew that he couldn't break out his graph chart and explain it .... so he put it together in a way people who he has little respect of amity for would understand

I don't feel the need to paraphrase or explain Trump - he and every other populist politician have been explained over the years already - ad nauseum.... if he renegotiates NAFTA and recoups an actual 10 billion dollars in GDP, he still has to go through Congress for the money - and he has, in his own lovable way made damn sure that they will say, in exactly Nancy Pelosi's words, "NO WALL, NO DISCUSSION"

But yeah that NAFTA renegotiation is great

And a couple good jurists on the SCOTUS

So it depends on what your definition of “pay for it” is.

It’s a nuanced form of funding.

He was claiming he'd get Mexico to pay for it directly. Here's a discussion of it:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... write-che/

Here's a USA today article on it:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 535573002/

Both articles cite this Trump campaign memo:

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Pay_for_the_Wall.pdf

This thing of him now saying the tweaked NAFTA deal is making Mexico pay for the wall in the sense he was talking about during his campaign is utter nonsense. No. He was saying Mexico would directly provide funds and outlined ways in which the Mexican government would be pressured into doing so.

[CID1990]

So it depends on what your definition of “pay for it” is.

It’s a nuanced form of funding.

He was claiming he'd get Mexico to pay for it directly. Here's a discussion of it:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... write-che/

Here's a USA today article on it:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 535573002/

Both articles cite this Trump campaign memo:

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Pay_for_the_Wall.pdf

This thing of him now saying the tweaked NAFTA deal is making Mexico pay for the wall in the sense he was talking about during his campaign is utter nonsense. No. He was saying Mexico would directly provide funds and outlined ways in which the Mexican government would be pressured into doing so.

Who are you trying to argue with, John?

It is immaterial - I already said that's how Trump packaged it

Judas Priest