(01-06-2017 03:33 PM)JOwl Wrote: That's a load of garbage Hammy. What does "one-time payment" mean to you?
You didn't realize he had actually written that. That much is clear.
Wow... really?
I actually had... though It's on his actual site and not on 'the wayback machine'. When i saw that you had resorted to that, I amended my comment since I hadn't read the entire page you linked/compared it to his and can't/hadn't verified its authenticity or consistency in its entirety.
The comment is,
It's an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year
after year.
1) Are we going to bill them before it is built? You'd think we could narrow it down a little better than $5-10byn if that is the case.
2) If we bill them afterwards, are we going to wait years to pay our contractors?
Of course not. It seems obvious to anyone without an agenda that this 'one time payment' means 'pay once for the wall'... and not the 'send one check' that you seem to want to imply/believe.
Trump seems perfectly willing to accept keeping $24byn/yr forever in this country in lieu of that 'one time payment' and only a complete moron would say that doing so (if mexico were that stupid) would make Trump out to be a liar, since they didn't make a one time payment, but instead they gave up hundreds of thousands of small transactions. That is precisely the threat he's making.
Seriously... If Mexico said 'go ahead and keep that money', and Trump said 'okay', would you consider this a broken campaign promise since it wouldn't be one payment and wouldn't come from the Mexican government, even though it was a LARGE multiple of the cost of the wall?
If instead of writing a check, Mexico 'negotiated' a 10yr, 10% tarriff on those monies meaning rather than getting $5-10byn one time, that we got $2.4byn/yr for 10 years... I mean again, Mexico would be foolish to do this, but they certainly COULD.... would you consider this a broken campaign promise since it wouldn't be one payment and wouldn't come from the Mexican government even though it was again a multiple of the cost of the wall?
If Mexico instead negotiated (again, I have no idea what they'd use for leverage, but humoring your side's fantasies) a $5-10byn reduction in the aid currently being sent to Mexico (already on the budgets) but spread out over say 5-10 years (perhaps even paid as the contractors were paid), would you consider this a broken campaign promise since it wouldn't be one payment and wouldn't come from the Mexican government even though it was again a multiple of the cost of the wall?
In each of those scenario's, Mexico would have unarguably 'paid' for the wall. In each of those scenarios, Mexico would be given a choice between two options and most likely chosen the less expensive for them option, which is to some way in some manner 'pay for the wall'.
Of course those aren't the only options. The options are technically unlimited. Maybe they offer us Baja.
Any claims that any of these solutions don't meet the campaign promise are purely pedantic.