___________
Trump pleaded with him to pretend Mexico would pay
He dosnt need Mexico to agree. He can divert money we currently send them in the form of finacial aide and drug enforcement to his wall. Thats about 300 million a year. He can also use a trade tariff to finance the wall.
That's exactly what he did.
The math I used came from a quick Google search on money we give mexico. The most current data I found was from 2013 so I went with that. It claimed we gave them about 200 million to assist with drug enforcement and another 60 million in foregin aide. I rounded it up a bit to account for it being 4yrs later. Thats how I came up to 300 million.
Xelor said:
Im glad your not one of those people who wants to nitpick over details and instead debates the larger point. Not wanting any tax money spent on it is valid and One I share with you. Reality is that we dont really get much of a say in what our tax money is spent on. We get to vote on who represents our interests and than its out of our hands.
Xelor said:
good the exact amount is unimportant
Xelor said:
To some extent I agree but that is something thats subjective and each voter can decide for themselves which party is being reasonable or unreasonable as the case may be.
Xelor said:
This is a matter of semtantics. At the end of the day If mexico wrote us a check for the exact amount that we give them in aide, one could argue that we paid for our own wall even though the check was written by mexico and the reality is that the us treasury would look exactly the same and mexicos would be the one missing money. In this sense mexico is indeed paying for the wall.
Xelor said:Congress does not in all instances need Trump's signature. In fact, most legislation passes with veto-proof majorities. So, no, they really need Trump's signature. Perhaps Trump, like you, thinks Congress does need his "John Hancock." It wouldn't surprise me he's that unaware of the reality of the legislative process. It wouldn't be the first thing of which he's utterly ignorant.
- On all bills that became law during this period, more than 60 percent of minority lawmakers voted in favor of passage on average, and in many congresses more than 80 percent of the minority voted yes.
- On landmark laws we see more variation in minority support across congresses, but still find that, on average, more than 65 percent of minority lawmakers vote in favor of these laws. Only in two congresses, the 103rd and the 111th, does the percentage of minority support fall below 50 percent.
- In spite of stronger, more cohesive parties, as well as more powerful leaders with tools to execute partisan lawmaking, laws passed in Congress are mostly done with large percentages of the minority voting in the affirmative. Contrary to consistent claims of majority party dominance over the minority, laws, including landmark bills, are typically passed with majorities of both parties in support.
Unless you have a supermajority concensus a bill can not be signined into law without the POTUS. Trump has the power of the veto.
Xelor said:
This is what you said that my comment was directed at
Xelor said:
Xelor said:
Im glad your not one of those people who wants to nitpick over details and instead debates the larger point. Not wanting any tax money spent on it is valid and One I share with you. Reality is that we dont really get much of a say in what our tax money is spent on. We get to vote on who represents our interests and than its out of our hands.
Xelor said:
good the exact amount is unimportant
Xelor said:
To some extent I agree but that is something thats subjective and each voter can decide for themselves which party is being reasonable or unreasonable as the case may be.
Xelor said:
This is a matter of semtantics. At the end of the day If mexico wrote us a check for the exact amount that we give them in aide, one could argue that we paid for our own wall even though the check was written by mexico and the reality is that the us treasury would look exactly the same and mexicos would be the one missing money. In this sense mexico is indeed paying for the wall.
Xelor said:Congress does not in all instances need Trump's signature. In fact, most legislation passes with veto-proof majorities. So, no, they really need Trump's signature. Perhaps Trump, like you, thinks Congress does need his "John Hancock." It wouldn't surprise me he's that unaware of the reality of the legislative process. It wouldn't be the first thing of which he's utterly ignorant.
- On all bills that became law during this period, more than 60 percent of minority lawmakers voted in favor of passage on average, and in many congresses more than 80 percent of the minority voted yes.
- On landmark laws we see more variation in minority support across congresses, but still find that, on average, more than 65 percent of minority lawmakers vote in favor of these laws. Only in two congresses, the 103rd and the 111th, does the percentage of minority support fall below 50 percent.
- In spite of stronger, more cohesive parties, as well as more powerful leaders with tools to execute partisan lawmaking, laws passed in Congress are mostly done with large percentages of the minority voting in the affirmative. Contrary to consistent claims of majority party dominance over the minority, laws, including landmark bills, are typically passed with majorities of both parties in support.
Unless you have a supermajority concensus a bill can not be signined into law without the POTUS. Trump has the power of the veto.
Xelor said:
This is what you said that my comment was directed at
Xelor said:
Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
/---/ 50 years???? Try less than two years:
Xelor said:
Im glad your not one of those people who wants to nitpick over details and instead debates the larger point. Not wanting any tax money spent on it is valid and One I share with you. Reality is that we dont really get much of a say in what our tax money is spent on. We get to vote on who represents our interests and than its out of our hands.
Xelor said:
good the exact amount is unimportant
Xelor said:
To some extent I agree but that is something thats subjective and each voter can decide for themselves which party is being reasonable or unreasonable as the case may be.
Xelor said:
This is a matter of semtantics. At the end of the day If mexico wrote us a check for the exact amount that we give them in aide, one could argue that we paid for our own wall even though the check was written by mexico and the reality is that the us treasury would look exactly the same and mexicos would be the one missing money. In this sense mexico is indeed paying for the wall.
Xelor said:Congress does not in all instances need Trump's signature. In fact, most legislation passes with veto-proof majorities. So, no, they really need Trump's signature. Perhaps Trump, like you, thinks Congress does need his "John Hancock." It wouldn't surprise me he's that unaware of the reality of the legislative process. It wouldn't be the first thing of which he's utterly ignorant.
- On all bills that became law during this period, more than 60 percent of minority lawmakers voted in favor of passage on average, and in many congresses more than 80 percent of the minority voted yes.
- On landmark laws we see more variation in minority support across congresses, but still find that, on average, more than 65 percent of minority lawmakers vote in favor of these laws. Only in two congresses, the 103rd and the 111th, does the percentage of minority support fall below 50 percent.
- In spite of stronger, more cohesive parties, as well as more powerful leaders with tools to execute partisan lawmaking, laws passed in Congress are mostly done with large percentages of the minority voting in the affirmative. Contrary to consistent claims of majority party dominance over the minority, laws, including landmark bills, are typically passed with majorities of both parties in support.
Unless you have a supermajority concensus a bill can not be signined into law without the POTUS. Trump has the power of the veto.
Xelor said:
This is what you said that my comment was directed at
Xelor said:
Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
to Mexico or to everyone?/---/ 50 years???? Try less than two years:
Xelor said:
Im glad your not one of those people who wants to nitpick over details and instead debates the larger point. Not wanting any tax money spent on it is valid and One I share with you. Reality is that we dont really get much of a say in what our tax money is spent on. We get to vote on who represents our interests and than its out of our hands.
Xelor said:
good the exact amount is unimportant
Xelor said:
To some extent I agree but that is something thats subjective and each voter can decide for themselves which party is being reasonable or unreasonable as the case may be.
Xelor said:
Xelor said:Congress does not in all instances need Trump's signature. In fact, most legislation passes with veto-proof majorities. So, no, they really need Trump's signature. Perhaps Trump, like you, thinks Congress does need his "John Hancock." It wouldn't surprise me he's that unaware of the reality of the legislative process. It wouldn't be the first thing of which he's utterly ignorant.
- On all bills that became law during this period, more than 60 percent of minority lawmakers voted in favor of passage on average, and in many congresses more than 80 percent of the minority voted yes.
- On landmark laws we see more variation in minority support across congresses, but still find that, on average, more than 65 percent of minority lawmakers vote in favor of these laws. Only in two congresses, the 103rd and the 111th, does the percentage of minority support fall below 50 percent.
- In spite of stronger, more cohesive parties, as well as more powerful leaders with tools to execute partisan lawmaking, laws passed in Congress are mostly done with large percentages of the minority voting in the affirmative. Contrary to consistent claims of majority party dominance over the minority, laws, including landmark bills, are typically passed with majorities of both parties in support.
Xelor said:
This is what you said that my comment was directed at
Xelor said:
Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
In fiscal year 2014, the U.S. government allocated the following amounts for aid:
Total economic and military assistance: $43.10 billion
Total military assistance: $10.57 billion
Total economic assistance: $32.53 billion
of which USAID Implemented: $17.82 billion[4]
/----/ Excuse me for being precise, but when I read "If the United States redirected all of its foreign aid," I understand it to be ALL FOREIGN AID, not just aid to one country.to Mexico or to everyone?/---/ 50 years???? Try less than two years:
Xelor said:
Im glad your not one of those people who wants to nitpick over details and instead debates the larger point. Not wanting any tax money spent on it is valid and One I share with you. Reality is that we dont really get much of a say in what our tax money is spent on. We get to vote on who represents our interests and than its out of our hands.
Xelor said:
good the exact amount is unimportant
Xelor said:
To some extent I agree but that is something thats subjective and each voter can decide for themselves which party is being reasonable or unreasonable as the case may be.
Xelor said:
Xelor said:Congress does not in all instances need Trump's signature. In fact, most legislation passes with veto-proof majorities. So, no, they really need Trump's signature. Perhaps Trump, like you, thinks Congress does need his "John Hancock." It wouldn't surprise me he's that unaware of the reality of the legislative process. It wouldn't be the first thing of which he's utterly ignorant.
- On all bills that became law during this period, more than 60 percent of minority lawmakers voted in favor of passage on average, and in many congresses more than 80 percent of the minority voted yes.
- On landmark laws we see more variation in minority support across congresses, but still find that, on average, more than 65 percent of minority lawmakers vote in favor of these laws. Only in two congresses, the 103rd and the 111th, does the percentage of minority support fall below 50 percent.
- In spite of stronger, more cohesive parties, as well as more powerful leaders with tools to execute partisan lawmaking, laws passed in Congress are mostly done with large percentages of the minority voting in the affirmative. Contrary to consistent claims of majority party dominance over the minority, laws, including landmark bills, are typically passed with majorities of both parties in support.
Xelor said:
This is what you said that my comment was directed at
Xelor said:
Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
In fiscal year 2014, the U.S. government allocated the following amounts for aid:
Total economic and military assistance: $43.10 billion
Total military assistance: $10.57 billion
Total economic assistance: $32.53 billion
of which USAID Implemented: $17.82 billion[4]
Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
/----/ And when he does make Mexico pay for the wall one way or the other, you'll be first in line to dismiss his success with some childish rant like "Well he didn't make them actually write out a check." or "It took him too long." or "He didn't really mean to do it, it just happened." or "Mexico only paid for 99% of the wall."
/----/ Your point being....
