Trump now says that the Mexico wall will be paid for by American taxpayers and will cost no more than $8 billion. Experts, however, peg the cost as up to $14 billion not including expropriation and maintenance costs. In order to appease supporters who complain that Mexico was supposed to foot the bill, Trump backtracked saying that the taxpayer money is actually a short term loan that will be repaid by Mexico.

Let's call it what it is - a scam to funnel billions of taxpayer dollars into corporate coffers.

Member Avatar


He he. He.s going to fleece the American people while cosying up to other supermagnates and unscrupulous world leaders. How many pundits are going to be saying I told you so? I sincerely hope he gets impeached or thrown out before he can do any lasting damage.

The pundits will always say that whatever happens is exactly what they predicted (without any supporting evidence, of course). I wonder how Trump's supporters are rationalizing now. Trump will take away their Obamacare, Medicare and Medicaid. AND he's going to make them pay for that wall he had them cheering for.

Wait. What?

He he, indeed.

He promised a "wall". He will deliver a "fence", if anything, and at US taxpayers' expense. The difference between a "wall" and a "fence" is not simple semantics. I wish more people would grill him on that part of his promise (not that I WANT a wall, mind you, I just like holding politicians accountable for their promises). I don't even think the Border Patrol even WANTS a wall. They can't see through a wall to detect people about to cross, so that's counterproductive.

Any plan having a realistic chance of success would have that as only one element of the plan. A wall or fence by itself won't work. It will ONLY keep out the regular folks who aren't part of a larger group or who are not athletic/smart/sophisticated/motivated enough to go over, under, around, or through it. In other words, it won't stop the really bad guys that he's supposedly trying to stop: cartels, terrorists, human traffickers, etc. So he's changed "wall" to "fence", he's walked back who is going to pay for the damn thing, he's walked back the deportation force idea, and he seems to not plan on toughing any of the other factors that might help/hurt the overall strategy: employer sanctions, internal enforcement, maintenance of the wall, manning the border, diplomacy, etc. etc. It's all bumper sticker stuff, not a real plan.

I've been seeing an increase of over the top ideas like sticking landmines on the border and having a "Trespassers will be shot" policy and treating it like the Korean DMZ. These too too are overly-simplistic as well, as well as ugly. Press them on who does the shooting and how and under what circumstances and they have no answers. They just want to "get tough" and shoot people. If you ask them if they want to replace the Border Patrol with the military and give them orders to shoot anyone crossing the border illegally instead of trying to arrest them, and ask them if that would include unarmed women, children, and elderly people who are NOT suspected of transporting drugs, some of them say yes. I'm not sure whether they're just being stubborn and unwilling to back down or if they're serious.

It's all talk, but it's talk that used to be confined to the loons and now I'm hearing it more among the regular folks. I don't think the people saying this stuff actually think it will work, but I don't think they actually care either. That's the part that continues to amaze me. They don't care whether a wall would help or not. They just want a wall. And they REALLY want Mexico to pay for it. Donald Trump is supposedly this great negotiator, but think about it. Why would Mexico agree? They're politicians too. How are they going to explain to Mexican voters that their tax dollars are going towards a wall that no Mexican taxpayer benefits from? It would be political suicide.

Let's get real. The purpose of the wall is not to keep Mexicans out. The purpose is to funnel billions of dollars from the pockets of American taxpayers into the pockets of corporate America. Consider how highly placed Dick Cheney was in Haliburton before he became VP. Then consider how many billions of dollars flowed into Haliburton's coffers during the Iraq war. It wasn't a coincidence that Haliburton got all those fat contracts.

The purpose of the wall is not to keep Mexicans out.


The purpose is to funnel billions of dollars from the pockets of American taxpayers into the pockets of corporate America.

It's hard to tell with Trump. I generally think his primary motive is to be provocative for its own sake and to see how far he can take things. Filling Corporate America's pockets might be a nice fringe benefit, but I have to think that it's just that: a fringe benefit. I doubt someone who was in it purely for the money would have thrown out all the "The Mexicans will pay for it" and "Don't like the wall? It just got fifty feet taller!" provocations.

You never know with that guy though. It will be interesting to see if this thing actually gets built.

A lot of that was just fodder to keep the media from focusing on important issues, IMO. "Build that wall" and "Lock her up" make for better sound bites than sensible fiscal policy. The media is just reflecting the apparent attention span of the American public who don't seem to be capable of following anything that can't be summarized in a tweet.

RE: Meryl Streep at the Golden Globes

When are people going to get it? The reason Trump makes tweets like "Meryl Streep is underrated" is to provoke the very reaction he got. The one thing that Trump cannot abide is when the conversation turns to something other than Donald Trump. In this case, he once again managed to provoke a shit-storm of tweets, talk-show segments and news items all about TRUMP. The conversation is once again all-Trump. Yes, when it comes to foreign policy, nukes, etc. it is appropriate and even necessary to respond to his ravings. When it comes to just about anything else the correct response is to ignore him. I would also not be offended if Stephen Colbert, etc. just responded with a short "Donald. Nobody cares about your ignorant, childish opinion of Meryl Streep."

The point of the wall was to be a bad-ass. A wall with towers would be an imposing and impressive statement which Trump loves, it's what he is all about - just like his buildings with his name emblazened in unnecessarily large letters across them. Of course Mexico wasn't going to pay for it. Even many of Trump's own supporters didn't really believe it would happen - just the brain-dead drooling fanatics believed in it.

Trump doesn't care about Corporate America, Trump cares about his own businesses and his personal "friends" who tell him how awesome and right he is and his conspiracy spinning heros. That and keeping as much attention on himself as possible - classic insecure narcissist.

The point of the wall was to be a bad-ass.

Interesting definition off "bad-ass" and why he admires Putin (I feel confident the admiration is NOT mutual). I think you're onto something. My definition of "bad-ass" has evolved since I was a teenage boy. I'm not sure his has. Hence his view of torture as bad-ass and him being worried that ISIS is "laughing at us" because the US isn't willing to be as brutal as they are. It's like the cops trying to out-"loco" a gangbanger who kills an innocent victim by killing TWO innocent people. If you aspire to that, you should be a gangbanger, not a cop, and you sure as hell shouldn't be the Leader Of The Free World. Hence the weird threat to torture ISIS' FAMILIES. I can understand (without agreeing with it) the concept of torturing members of ISIS, but deliberately torturing their families who have no tactical information is psychotic. Even if you COULD be more brutal than ISIS, do you really want to be? Nope, even as a teenager, torturing innocent people didn't meet my concept of being a "bad-ass". He's 70 and will have the nuclear codes in a week. Hopefully General Mattis as SECDEF will throw some cold water on some of Trump's "ideas". It would be nice to think that General Flynn will do the same on the National Security Advisor side, but I fear that Trump and Flynn are two peas in a pod and will actually feed off of each other, the end result being an echo chamber where the lunacy is normalized.

A wall with towers would be an imposing and impressive statement which Trump loves

Add in pitbulls, moats, mine-fields, sharks with laser beams, and guys like the prison guards in Brubaker and Cool Hand Luke with mirrored sunglasses salivating over the idea of getting to shoot someone who even TOUCHES the wall. Display the heads of earlier trespassers on pikes on the wall. How bad-ass is that?!?!

Hence my earlier distinction of "fence" versus "wall". A wall is "imposing" and "impressive" and "bad-ass" to some. But a fence? Meh. That's been done to death. We already HAVE a fence on a lot of the border, which even a girly-man like Obama voted for. To be impressive and imposing, Trump has to outdo the fence. I suppose he could add a bunch of scary looking razor wire to the fence.

One week, folks. This guy gets sworn in in one week.

Interesting definition off "bad-ass" and why he admires Putin (I feel confident the admiration is NOT mutual).

Yeah if you think of Trump as a 13-25 year old boy who like movies full of Xplosions and videogames with big guns many of his "policies" start making sense. I'm pretty sure Putin thinks of him as an asset to be handled and used rather than anything close to someone deserving of respect.

PS have you seen this Trumps started admitting his campaign was just a big con.

I'll go closer to the "13" part of "13 - 25" for Trump's maturity level. By 25, most men are men and have grown out of a lot of their teenage silliness. He's a perpetual teenager, and a frat-boy teenager at that. Mark Bowden called it...

The ideas that pop into his head are the same ones that occur to any teenager angry about terror attacks. They appeal to anyone who can’t be bothered to think them through

Hadn't seen the link you posted and yes, it's quite ridiculous, but I think they could have compiled an even more ridiculous segment. There are a lot of contenders, but my personal favorite is him calling Obama the "founder" of ISIS, being asked numerous times whether he meant that literally, saying yes, then meeting Obama and doing a complete 180, saying he likes Obama and even more ridiculously that he thinks Obama likes him. My Trump expectations have been so low for so long that I had to watch that segment twice before it registered how bad it was.

I recently heard a personal story about him from years ago. A friend of a friend was fundraising for a Wounded Veterans charity and, along with some similar charities, called Trump's office for a meeting to possibly get involved. He talked a big game, but when it came down to actually scheduling a real meeting, it was cancellation after cancellation, he asked none of the questions someone serious would ask about how the charities operated, promised to write a check but never did, and couldn't be bothered to actually meet any of the wounded veterans other than a quick handshake and even then he was clearly doing it for the photo op. He completely blew off the opportunity to simply sit down and talk with the veterans in private, no cameras, no money, no bragging rights, just sit down with them and talk. Instead he offered a few free trips to his resort in Florida, backstage passes to meet Miss Universe contestants, etc., which the charities rejected. Backing up my view of him as perpetual frat-boy, Trump was puzzled why young red-blooded American combat veterans would turn down an opportunity to hang out with beautiful women in bikinis. This was years ago pre-candidacy. No contact in years, then last year they were contacted by the campaign out of the blue right around the time that he was caught promising, but not delivering, money to military veterans' charities. The timing is interesting to say the least.

It's a friend of a friend story, so it's impossible to verify, and normally I try not to sling mud on someone when I can't verify the story personally, but it fits in with my view of the guy so I accept it as accurate since it dovetails nicely with all the reporting. I no longer feel the need to give the guy any benefit of the doubt.

Yeah if you think of Trump as a 13-25 year old boy...

I believe the term is psychological neoteny. it's the retention of youthful attitudes and behaviour into adulthood.

I got these definitions from , strange...

trump (trʌmp)

  1. (Instruments) a trumpet or the sound produced by one
  2. (Ecclesiastical Terms) the last trump the final trumpet call that according to the belief of some will awaken and raise the dead on the Day of Judgment


  1. (Music, other) (intr) to produce a sound upon or as if upon the trumpet
  2. (Music, other) (tr) to proclaim or announce with or as if with a fanfare
  3. (intr) slang Brit to expel intestinal gas through the anus
    [C13: from Old French trompe, from Old High German trumpa trumpet; compare trombone]
    Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

I got these definitions from , strange...

Language is ever-evolving. New definitions of "Trump" are being created. See the Urban Dictionary. Most of them are dumb, but there are a few good ones in there. When enough people adopt the a new definition, it becomes THE definition. Thus my guess is after the inevitable nuclear war, archaeologists thousands of years from now will find an official dictionary. A "trump" will be defined as "someone who was born rich, is healthy, has millions of adoring fans, a supermodel for a wife, achieves a level of success far beyond what he deserves, yet still wants more and feels insecure and persecuted".

When the next version of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders comes out, I predict that "narcissism" will be renamed "trumpism". Trump will be conflicted about whether to embrace the fame of having a disorder named after him or feeling persecuted for having a disorder named after him. In the end, fame beats obscurity so he'll want it left in.

It's really quite simple.

A trump is a fart, and a fart is gaseous shite.

Therefore, Trump = gaseous shite.

Sorry, I meant President Gaseous Shite, of course...

Best idea of 2017

Someone proposed that Obama resign as president one day early to allow Biden to serve as the 45th president for one day. This would have made Trump the 46th president, thus invalidating the millions of dollars of "Trump 45" imprinted merchandise worthless.

That's something Trump might do to HIS successor. Obama and Biden have too much integrity and respect for the office itself to play games like that.

Completely understand the urge to screw with the guy though.

Listening to his inauguration speech. Some of the words sound good, but I just don't believe he means them.

Obama's inauguration was about hope. Trump's was just more "the country has gone to hell" rhetoric from his campaign. At least he didn't have the sniffles.

Some of the words sound good, but I just don't believe he means them.

Even if he does believe them, his rejection of facts and knowledge means whatever he does do most likely won't have the effect he intends.

We are now officially in the world of George Orwell. The Trump administration is now using the phrase "Alternative Facts" when what they say disagrees with reality. For those unfamiliar with doublespeak

alternative facts = lies
commented: Heh heh. His new mouthpiece Kellyanne is a dick too. +0
commented: I don't where to put this. The new colors for this year are gold, gold and gold. +0
commented: Yep! +0

1984 is not far away "alternative facts" fits into newspeak

I should reread it. I forgot it isn't doublespeak. It's Doublethink.

Unfortunately, with the splintering of "news" sources into 6 (maybe fewer now) major traditional conglomerates and several thousand internet feeds, most people are free to consume only those "facts" that support their existing world view. I have a cousin with a PhD in statistics (retired) who used to be fairly high up at Stats Canada. You'd expect this person to have a farily high regard for the facts. And yet, I would regularly get forwarded email from containing the most ridiculous garbage. My usual reaction when I get blatantly false information is to do a fact check and reply to the sender with the corrected information. When I did that he accused me of being pedantic and said he didn't care if it was true as long as it was entertaining.

He lives across the country from me but I happened to run into him at a function here recently. He asked me my thoughts on the Trump victory. I simply replied "that's what happens when people don't give a flying f**k whether or not what they read and pass on is true or not."

We haven't spoken since.

commented: he he he +0

I have a cousin with a PhD in statistics (retired) who used to be fairly high up at Stats Canada. You'd expect this person to have a farily high regard for the facts.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. And there's "spin", whatever that is.

We've lately become used to thinking that spin and misusing statistics is OK, but lies and damned lies were off-limits.

Till now.

We live in interesting times.

There are fears that Trump has normalized all types of language and bad behaviour. In almost all cases I agree that this is a bad thing. However, there is one word in particular that Trump has used instead of all the usual euphemisms. That word is "lie" as in "she lies" or "lying Marco". This is a word I want to see more of. Whenever the press reports on a Trump speech, statement or tweet I want to see it followed (when appropriate, of course) with the phrase "he lied" or "this is a lie". In the past the press has avoided stating the obvious by using such weasel words such as "unsubstantiated, "unproven", "this turns out not to be the case" or "this is not entirely accurate". When a statement directly and obviously contradicts the provable facts then I think it is the responsibility of the press to state this clearly.

Wouldn't you like to see the headline "Trump stated that when he started giving his inaugural speech it immediately stopped raining and the sun came out" immediately followed by (in bold text) THIS IS A LIE?

If nothing else this would drive him batshit insane(r) and give Congress the fuel it needs to remove him from the presidency.

So Trump has signed an executive order to build the wall (although funds would have to be approved by congress). He has already stated that the initial costs would be borne by the US taxpayer with restitution to come from Mexico at a later date. He just announced that the costs would be recouped by applying tarrifs to all goods imported from Mexico.

Now, I'm not entirely certain exactly how tarrifs work but it seems to me that any tarrifs would increase the cost of those goods to the consumer. The retailer would not be hurt except in possibly reduced sales volume. Doesn't that basically mean that the wall will be paid for by the US taxpayer TWICE? Once when they lose their tax dollars up front and again when they buy that new fridge?

Not to mention that the only ones to actually benefit from the wall would be the corporations who would get billions in contracts to build the useless piece of shit.

Member Avatar


It's all posturing and browbeating. He's a bully and used to getting his own way. When he doesn't, the toys come out of the pram. I've heard a lot about how pragmatic Trump is - really? All I've seem is reactionary outbursts and man-baby tantrums. WRT lying - thought that the pres had to be above reproach and if caught lying could be impeached? Not saying that this should apply to the weather(!), but he needs to be held to account. This should not be a special rule for Trump, but for any pres, surely?