world

Mexican president contradicts Trump on whether they discussed who will pay for proposed border wall

62 Comments
By Christine Murray, Ana Isabel Martinez and Dave Graham

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2016.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


62 Comments
Login to comment

Trump should have gone someplace where his views are welcomed and he is liked. Someplace like Moscow. Meanwhile, in far more important news, the Supreme Court has refused to reinstate North Carolina's racist voter ID laws and restricted voting hours. That's going to have more of an impact on this election than this cheap PR stunt by Cheeto Bandito.

5 ( +12 / -7 )

The Mexican president said the many millions of Mexicans in the United States deserve respect, but offered only a mild rebuke of Trump for his rhetoric.

in other words Mexico has accepted Trump and will welcome him as the President of the USA.

-14 ( +5 / -19 )

Crazy Joe

I think the restricted voting hours in North Carolina are a bad deal, but can you explain why the voter ID law is racist? How would this adversely impact one race over another? I have heard other points indicating it is difficult to get an ID, however why is it harder for one race to obtain and ID as opposed to another race? This argument against the voter ID law has never made sense to me.

Regarding Trump; I do not think he is fit to be Commander in Chief, however he did go down there so I will give him points for that.

The U.S. does in fact have a right to construct a wall. I do not think we have a right to demand Mexico pay for it (although they do encourage illegal entrance into our country).

I have nothing against illegal immigrants personally. As a matter of fact I would likely do the same if I were in their shoes. Those that come to the U.S. to work and support their families have my respect. I do have something against our government (both political parties) who have done nothing to address this issue. I also have something against the Mexican government, which is also corrupt (as is the U.S. govt.), and actually encourages this activity.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

Trumpy back in the US now. The Ego has landed?

3 ( +9 / -6 )

Keep up the bridge building everyone.

This week, a new Mexican consulate opened in Milwaukee, the first direct commercial flights to Havana in decades started, and Trump in Mexico City called Mexicans our friends without his usual sarcastic smirk.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

But his omission of asking Mexico to pay for the wall during Wednesday’s talks was notable.

Nieto tweeted that the first thing he said to Trump was that he's not going to pay for the wall. And it's a bit silly to think you talked about the wall but neither side said anything about paying for it.

Trump didn't accomplish much except that he didn't implode, which is an accomplishment. I think that's all he really needed to do. He also got a photo op. His words over the next 24 hours will either make or break it for him regarding this trip.

Tokyo-Engr: I think the restricted voting hours in North Carolina are a bad deal, but can you explain why the voter ID law is racist?

The judge said that the new laws targeted "African-Americans with almost surgical precision." You can take his word, or you can research the case. And keep in mind it's not just about IDs, it's about polling places, registration times, voting windows; the sheer size of it makes it illogical to claim coincidence over and over again.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Trump says they didn't talk about who would pay for it, Nieto says they did. Who do you believe? Probably not the one with a 78% falsehood rating on politifact.

Trump has spent so long acting like a petulant child during this campaign that the bar has been lowered ridiculously for him. His supporters in the conservative media bubble are saying he looked "presidential" simply because he didn't get caught in a lie that was immediately obvious or call on his followers to beat anyone.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Torafusu, I agree - good relations with Mexico are absolutely crucial to both nations. At best, we can be buddies; at worst, we're like that Face-Off scene where we're each holding a gun to the other's head. In either case, cooperation is not a choice; it is mandatory.

We'll see how Trump spins this during his speech in Arizona. I suspect Trump, somewhere in his reptilian brain, understands the above. The larger question is, do his supporters?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

What's cheaper? A wall or a new technology that allows agents and or cops to scan people from a distance for an I.D.? The future will crash it's way into us one way or another. You think corporate America dorsn't involve itself in building better mine detecting vehicles, and infra red scanning for Isis heat in occupied cities? Whatever the demand is. Disasters invite jobs. Capitalism during wartime is very sturdy. Trump isn't a political candidate. He's interested in playing with the biggest toys, and the biggest budget. American pie.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@Tokyo-Engr

I have heard other points indicating it is difficult to get an ID, however why is it harder for one race to obtain and ID as opposed to another race?

The only people that would have trouble getting an ID are the poor. Minority communities tend to be poorer, and who do minorities tend to vote for? Republican politicians are well aware of this, and many of them have let it slip on record that instituting voter ID laws will guarantee Republican victories. Voter fraud has never been a significant problem. The type that exists with any significance (absentee ballot fraud) wouldn't be prevented by IDs. Impersonation and voting by illegal immigrants is extremely rare (something like 31 in 1 billion votes).

So you have a fix that doesn't even address the non-existent problem it claims to address that only disenfranchises a very specific type of voter. The motivation of the Republican politicians couldn't be more obvious, especially when you consider the fact that Republicans pretty much have to use tactics like redrawing district lines and suppressing votes to win. Because the numbers show that if everyone in the country voted, progressives win.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Good walls make good neighbours, as the saying goes.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Surely nobody takes this wall-building seriously?

Although I hope Canada wasn't kidding about their wall.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I'm probably the only one here who has spoken with U.S. officials responsible for deciding where to set up walls (but fences is probably a better word here) and the design of those walls along certain sectors of the U.S.-Mexico border, and when asked how effective building a wall is along the border they just tilt their heads back and roll their eyes back. One guy told me, "You show me a 30 foot wall/fence and I'll show you a guy on the Mexican side of the border selling 32 foot ladders." And that's without taking the digging of tunnels into consideration.

Unless you develop a DMZ type border (like the one now between North & South Korea) fully equipped with electric barbed wire, minefields and armed soldiers who are trained to shoot first and ask questions second, how is it really possible to enforce a simple, unmanned wall regardless of how high it is?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of legal immigration and entering the U.S. or any other country for that matter legally, but is a great wall without any teeth really going to be enough?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

It's Peña not Pena: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrique_Pe%C3%B1a_Nieto

Give Trump a break, he's 70 years old! Maybe he dropped a bit during their conversation.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Good walls make good neighbours, as the saying goes.

You are channeling Robert Frost, who wrote, "Good fences make good neighbors."

4 ( +4 / -0 )

The only people that would have trouble getting an ID are the poor. Minority communities tend to be poorer, and who do minorities tend to vote for?

So if they can't buy and ID, how do they purchase food or see a doctor? Do these people have a TV as well? If they're that poor, certainly they can't afford to watch TV or maybe even afford soap.

Republican politicians are well aware of this, and many of them have let it slip on record that instituting voter ID laws will guarantee Republican victories.

Like the way Obama used the IRS to take out the heaviest Republican donors out of the 2012 election?

Voter fraud has never been a significant problem. The type that exists with any significance (absentee ballot fraud) wouldn't be prevented by IDs. Impersonation and voting by illegal immigrants is extremely rare (something like 31 in 1 billion votes).

So, if we all have IDs in conjunction with our drivers license, that would be the best option, I think honest people would be for it hands down.

So you have a fix that doesn't even address the non-existent problem it claims to address that only disenfranchises a very specific type of voter. The motivation of the Republican politicians couldn't be more obvious, especially when you consider the fact that Republicans pretty much have to use tactics like redrawing district lines and suppressing votes to win. Because the numbers show that if everyone in the country voted, progressives win.

What hogwash, the GOP are trying to siphon EVER single vote they can get. Waste not, want not.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

can you explain why the voter ID law is racist? How would this adversely impact one race over another?

The law is racist because the legislature designed the law based on a statistics on race and voting to limit the ability of afro-americans to vote..

One of the trends showed that afro-americans were more likely to have a school ID rather than a driver's license, and white voters were more likely to have a driver's license. Therefore, they restricted voting to only drivers licenses and non-school forms of ID.

There were other voting differences between whites and afro-americans, e.g., voting earlier, registering prior to turning 18 so that they were registered in time to vote, limits to time before voting in order to register to vote, etc. These all made it into the law with an intent to limit the afro-american vote.

The law was designed based on those statistics to reduce the ability of afro-americans to vote. That is why the a lower court said the law "was enacted 'with almost surgical precision' to blunt the influence of African American voters."

Furthermore, the legislature had no reasonable issue the law was intended to address that outweighed the harm to a class of people.

So, yes, the law was racist.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

trump is trailing in opinion polls

Whos opinion? Japantodays opinion? Criminal/Nap time/ refugee making/ Bleeding heart weak PC Hillary supporters opinion?

Of course Mexicans are going to pay for the wall. This is simple. The #1 revenue for the Mexican GDP is people sending money from the US! All Trump needs to do is put an extra tax on money sent from the US to Mexico. BOOM! Wall paid for.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

@bass4funk

So if they can't buy and ID, how do they purchase food or see a doctor? Do these people have a TV as well? If they're that poor, certainly they can't afford to watch TV or maybe even afford soap.

Once again you show a complete lack of understanding of everything, including what it's like to be poor. First off, it's not the actual cost of the IDs, it's the extra effort involved. If you're poor, without a car, and struggling to make ends meet, getting an ID that previously wasn't required just to vote is probably low on your list of priorities. Being able to afford food, doctors, and yes soap are real concerns for some people, so why put a completely unnecessary additional burden on them? Because again, the small amount of voter fraud that actually exists can't be prevented with voter IDs.

So, if we all have IDs in conjunction with our drivers license, that would be the best option, I think honest people would be for it hands down.

That's already the case. Most people use their drivers license as their ID. But guess who doesn't have drivers licenses...

What hogwash, the GOP are trying to siphon EVER single vote they can get. Waste not, want not.

Sure, as long as they're Republican votes. If you actually think the GOP wants Democrats to vote... Wow...

1 ( +3 / -2 )

BTW, it takes at least two people to have a discussion. If Peña Nieto stated 'Mexico's not paying' but Trump didn't discuss it with him, then it wasn't discussed. Did the President actually 'contradict Trump', or did the headline writer extrapolate this contradiction?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I'm no Obama supporter, but I think Obama should call Trump out on this. I'm surprised that the president of Mexico even met with Trump.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@JeffD, not so simple as raising taxes. What's to stop people from mailing cash, or giving the money to friends/family to deliver in person to Mexico?

Immigration is nothing but election year hot air. There are too many people who rely on foreign employees, from agriculture all the way up to the big sports teams. Look at the case of (soon to be traded) LA Dodgers player Yasiel Puig from Cuba. He had to be smuggled into the US through Mexico. Being Cuban provided automatic amnesty for Puig, while a few extortioners got jail time and the Dodgers and Puig make millions. Win win across the board. If Puig wants to hold off on acquiring US citizenship for a few decades, as Fernando Valenzuela did until recently, it's his call.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Viking (and Bum, etc.)

So your guys' posts made me spend my lunch hour doing a bit of reading.

First of all to me this is not a political issue. I actually read a couple of articles on this. One in The Nation and another on the Think Progress website. I am not trying to "pick a fight" or see this in a partisan way. I just think ID should be required to vote. However I think this is moot anyway as the South Carolina law had caveats in it that allowed voting without ID. I also read an article written by a black conservative gentleman who is pro Voter ID. He makes compelling arguments for voter ID - He has a pretty interesting background as well. On the flip side, the arguments you make are pretty compelling as well. I also read articles about a North Carolina law, which is slightly different than the South Carolina law.

The one point I am in full agreement with you is relative to registration at the polls, voting hours, etc. That crap should not have made it into a voter ID law. If an ID law is desired it should be simply that.

Mr. Bum makes the poverty argument. Other than economics is it more difficult for a black individual to obtain an ID that it is for a white individual? It would seem this law would actually impact poor white voters equally and perhaps more white voters would be disenfranchised simply due to the fact that the majority of the population is white (just by mere numbers).

<*The law is racist because the legislature designed the law based on a statistics on race and voting to limit the ability of afro-americans to vote.>

Is there somewhere that shows this law is actually written based on these statistics? A leaked document or meetings of minutes? Or is this an opinion. This is a pretty strong statement to make that it was specifically designed to suppress minorities. Neither the Think Progress article or the article in The Nation mentioned this. If this is your opinion...ok..

This was mentioned in one of the articles. Could it not be argued that a school ID does not constitute proof of citizenship?

I am in full agreement with you on this actually. If this was intended to be only a voter ID law then that is all it should be.

I read that. It was an interesting opinion.

Anyway does it change my mind? At this time - no - does it make me think about this more - Yes

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

BTW, it takes at least two people to have a discussion. If Peña Nieto stated 'Mexico's not paying' but Trump didn't discuss it with him, then it wasn't discussed. Did the President actually 'contradict Trump', or did the headline writer extrapolate this contradiction?

That is a lot of effort to parse a clear statement from an elected president that contradicts Trumph's "version" of the meeting.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The #1 revenue for the Mexican GDP is people sending money from the US! All Trump needs to do is put an extra tax on money sent from the US to Mexico. BOOM! Wall paid for.

Glad you brought that up, Jefferey. Now, aside from the domestic and international opprobrium that would draw and the fact that most undocumented immigrants in America would find a way to get around it anyway (just as they would over, under, or around a wall), I've always been confused about the "logic" behind this Trumpian argument: On one hand, he will deport all undocumented immigrants, yet at the same time, he will somehow leverage the remittances they send back to their families? Logically, you can't have both.

(Well, logically, you can't really have either, but this is Trumpian logic, not the real world, as his conversation with el Presidente today showed.)

2 ( +3 / -1 )

viking68: That is a lot of effort to parse a clear statement from an elected president that contradicts Trumph's "version" of the meeting.

The statement was that he stated something to Trump.

If I state something to you and you don't reply to it, are we having a discussion about it?

If some third party (the media) then says we are having a discussion, would you (or even I) feel bound by that description?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@Tokyo-Engr

Other than economics is it more difficult for a black individual to obtain an ID that it is for a white individual? It would seem this law would actually impact poor white voters equally and perhaps more white voters would be disenfranchised simply due to the fact that the majority of the population is white (just by mere numbers).

They're not proposing a new ID specifically for voting. They're talking about using drivers licenses or state IDs to prove your identity. We already have the numbers for who does and doesn't have IDs and the majority are not white. Here's some more reading that might enlighten you.

https://www.aclu.org/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

You also seem to ignore the fact that it's a non-solution to a non-issue. I think that's pretty key to understanding the true motives of those pushing for the laws.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

torufusu torasan

So, you're telling me that if you were Mexican, trying to send money home from the U.S., you d risk sending cash in the mail or, by chance, you are lucky enough to know and trust someone who is going back to Mexico, to give them your money, instead of sending it via western union, etc, for a 5% tax (don't know how much it will be)?

no, you are being unrealistic. Mexicans will pay for the wall. this isn't rocket science,

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

If I state something to you and you don't reply to it, are we having a discussion about it?

Except, Trumph did make statements about the wall both before and during the meeting. In the past, he stated that Mexico will pay for the wall, and he would make Mexico pay for it. That was a one-sided conversation full of false bravado and lies, which his supporters seem to like to hear.

In the meeting, Trumph addressed his concerns about shutting the border down and reaffirmed America’s sovereign right to build a wall on its borders if it chooses to. The elected president of Mexico replied by explicitly telling him Mexico would not pay for a wall.

Trumph didn't have the guts to tell the president to his face that he would make Mexico pay for it. You may call that being diplomatic and presidential, I call it being a coward after all the false bravado and the statements after the meeting.

Instead, he hid his comments like the coward he is and later said it was something to be discussed in the future.

Then while speaking to his supporters, he said: “they don’t know it yet, but they’re going to pay for it.”

3 ( +5 / -2 )

sanctions?

Yes, the World Trade Commission would really allow that. Just what the U.S. needs, become an isolationist country like back in 1910. Way to progress Republicans. Go back a few more years, and you can have slaves.

Where do you people get your nutball statistics? Fox News?

Mexico's GDP for 2015 was estimated to be $933.5B. $583.2B of that is from agriculture, industry and manufacturing. . . in Mexico.

Do you honestly think immigrants are sending any substantial portion of that number to Mexico?

If you do, you must be thick.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

viking: Except, Trumph did make statements about the wall both before and during the meeting. In the past, he stated that Mexico will pay for the wall, and he would make Mexico pay for it.

The topic at hand is not whether Trump made statements about the payment of the wall, in the past, the future, or while sitting on the toilet.

The topic is whether the headlines are misstating that he and Peña Nieto discussed WITH EACH OTHER the payment of the wall, rather than just Peña Nieto making a statement to Trump, and so whether they are also misstating that Peña Nieto contradicted Trump.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Which do you think it will be, Jefferey? Will he send them all home or allow them to stay in America so that he can tax the pitiful remittances they send to their families in Mexico? Can't have it both ways. (Incidentally, a tax rate of 2.5% on remittances as you suggested would require about 100 years to afford building the wall - and that doesn't include maintenance.)

3 ( +4 / -1 )

'Trumph didn't have the guts to tell the president to his face that he would make Mexico pay for it."

Oh just like the Mexican president waited until Trump left to announce on Twitter that he had said they wouldn't? Would that not have been something to mention at the press conference when Trump was there next to him? Yet, he did not....therefore, he knows who is paying for the wall. No point for "discussion" because it has already been determined.

You dont "discuss" with your landlord about paying the rent. You and they both know you are paying it or you dont live there anymore.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

viking68: Trumph didn't have the guts to tell the president to his face that he would make Mexico pay for it. You may call that being diplomatic and presidential, I call it being a coward after all the false bravado and the statements after the meeting.

Re this (vik68) paragraph, Triump isn't supposed to be getting into that at this stage. Hillaryites would be jumping out of their drawers if he was attempting negotiations with foreign powers prior to being elected.

“It was not a negotiation, and that would have been inappropriate. It is unsurprising that they hold two different views on this issue, and we look forward to continuing the conversation,” Trump spokesman Jason Miller said.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Good walls make good neighbours, as the saying goes.

Kind of like the berlin wall that seperated East and West Germany, right Wakarimasen? That was a beautiful wall--was there on my wedding when it fell. Lol.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The Trump campaign issued a memo to The Washington Post last April outlining for the first time how he would seek to force Mexico to pay. Hint: It isn't only remittances.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/memo-explains-how-donald-trump-plans-to-pay-for-border-wall/2007/

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

My mistake on the GDP, it is $1.244T (2015) counting capital formation and external balance on trade, which is negative and means Mexico imports more than it exports.

The topic is whether the headlines are misstating that he and Peña Nieto discussed WITH EACH OTHER

A MTM buggaboo is being created to defend Trumph.

Trumph addressed his concerns about "shutting the border down and reaffirmed America’s sovereign right to build a wall on its borders if it chooses to."

Those are a one-way statements Trumph made to the presiden.

To quote Trumph: "We did discuss the wall."

Those one--way statements are called a discussion by Trumph.

However, when the president says something to Trumph (i.e., we will not pay for the wall) in a one way statement, that isn't a discussion.

To quote Trumph, "We didn’t discuss payment of the wall, that will be at a later date."

Oh, the hypocrisy is real.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The law is racist because the legislature designed the law based on a statistics on race and voting to limit the ability of afro-americans to vote.

So that's the Democrats fabrication now? Ok, for arguments sake, let's say that we're hypothetically true, how and what impact have the Democrats been on improving people's lives like Chicago, Philly, Oakland, L.A.? Let's see how Democratic policies and how they've helped people.

http://heyjackass.com

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

So that's the Democrats fabrication now? Ok

Actually, that is the appellate judge's language, which was upheld by the Supreme Court.

It is pretty damning and makes the law racist.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

With this ID card, Assume It all about making people jumping hoops. Like a points system. First to get the driver,s licence you need to ID right. So you need the have a bank account in your exact name a plus social surcurity number and a original birth certificate or passport. If you don,t have a birth Cert or a Passport you have no chance of obtaining a driver,s Licence. To obtain a birth Certificate is just has hard id not harder. So the should have Government Photo ID card issue to all citizen or just except and bank account and Social Security Number for a votes ID card. All this cost as well.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

They're not proposing a new ID specifically for voting. They're talking about using drivers licenses or state IDs to prove your identity.

This is why I think that if the voter ID crowd wants to get its way, then the only acceptable solution is to actually create a new ID specifically for voting. It would be distributed to every person on the electoral rolls, rich or poor, disabled or not, young or old. It could be attached to a sample ballot and surrendered on Election Day when the voter goes to the polls.

People who can drive are so accustomed to carrying their driver's licenses around and enjoying the privilege that those licenses give them that they don't see how difficult life is for those who can't obtain them. They propose non-solutions like "go to the DMV and get a non-driver ID." Wait, you want people to carry around papers that say that they are forbidden from doing something? Papers that offer no privileges, and you want people to have to present those in order to vote? In the USA?

It is the very opposite of democratic to have organizations like the Division of Motor Vehicles inserting itself in the election process. Remember, every citizen gains the right to vote -- right, not privilege -- upon reaching age 18. There should be no streamlined route to exercising one's vote just because one can drive a car, nor should there be any obstacles in the way if one cannot (or is legally forbidden to try, which will be the case if your eyesight is under 20/40).

You can't have two-tiered voting rights; certainly not for natural-born citizens. Either make the US passport free of charge, attach voting cards to sample ballots and have voters bring those to the polling places, or have municipalities make their own voter IDs and issue those to every voter. Or stick with the current system of having voters sign the rolls when they arrive and concede that there might be fraud. It is more important that every voter has the exact same opportunity to exercise the franchise.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Once again you show a complete lack of understanding of everything, including what it's like to be poor.

How do you know? You don't anything about me.

First off, it's not the actual cost of the IDs, it's the extra effort involved. If you're poor, without a car, and struggling to make ends meet, getting an ID that previously wasn't required just to vote is probably low on your list of priorities.

You make it sound as if they are incapable of movement. They're not invalid, righ? Come on, please stop with the excuses.

Being able to afford food, doctors, and yes soap are real concerns for some people, so why put a completely >unnecessary additional burden on them? Because again, the small amount of voter fraud that actually exists can't be prevented with voter IDs

So if these people need medical attention, how would or can we verify who these people say they are? You don't need any identification for going to see a doctor? Even first time? How would you pick up your pharmaceutical prescriptions??? Even if it's a small amount, if everyone has IDs, we can cut it down to zero, that would be even better.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Once again, The Donald lies, lies, lies. It is not surprising.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The U.S. does in fact have a right to construct a wall. I do not think we have a right to demand Mexico pay for it (although they do encourage illegal entrance into our country).

I just LOVE the simple-mindedness of right-wingers, build a wall, problem solved. Have you been to the border? I lived there in Hildago county, the poorest county the US, doing volunteer teaching, and Mexicans can have the flimiest of reasons (relatives, shopping) and DRIVE over the border. Long, long lines, mind you. Besides, even if the put up the wall, the biggest industry will be selling shovels to dig tunnels, probably with the blessings of the US shovel and "tunnel" industry who are thanking right-wing rubes for creating a demand. So, to do it right, talk to the former East Germans before they die off. Mines, machine-gun nests every 20 meters, staffed 24 hours a day, tens of thousands of dogs and patrols, etc, etc, etc. Welcome to Right-wing world. Wait, what's that? A few Mexicans flew to Canada and crossed over that BORDER???? Build a wall there too!!!!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

A better headline here would be "Mexican President Nieto says, "Mr. Trump and I had an open and constructive discusson."

I guess Hillary better get on down there and have an even more open and even more constructive discussion. Only problem is she's not capable of it.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Tokyo-Engr: The one point I am in full agreement with you is relative to registration at the polls, voting hours, etc. That crap should not have made it into a voter ID law.

But those provisions did make it into the law, so they should be included in a discussion about intent. It's a lot more than just IDs, and you can see what we are up against when conservatives limit their comments to, "You make it sound as if they are incapable of movement."

Do you think the conservative media has done a fair job presenting this to their followers? Most conservatives I meet don't seem to have any idea about the extras and they never have a logical response for it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

God Dam mexican,s knock down my wall ( Citywok Southpark episode) That all I can think of when Trump yells I am gunna build da wall. I am very much loving this reality TV. only in America LOL

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Any voter ID law does need contains “workarounds,” or exceptions like for example in Indiana, the first and one of the strictest in the nation:

A person who comes to the polls without identification can cast a provisional ballot, but their votes are only counted if within 10 days they can produce valid identification or sign an affidavit stating they can’t afford it, or have a religious objection to being photographed. In addition, a person who is 65 years old or older, or disabled, can submit an absentee ballot through the mail without providing identification.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/07/after-voter-id-defeats-lessons-from-indianas-law-that-has-stood-test-of-time/

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I think what Lizz is trying to say is that complying with laws, ones that have been described by judges as racist and having no impact on an imaginary problem, really has some convenient measures built in, so hey, why not?

On the flip side it looks like a fraudster can just use one of the workarounds mentioned above so they should be fine.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

There are absolutely financial and administrative costs involved in gathering the required documentation to obtain a free voter ID in Indiana, which is why there is also an opportunity to sign an affidavit declaring serious financial limitations or religious objections to being photographed. If someone can present proof that thousands of people who want to vote are having trouble getting the identification necessary they need to bring it forward. The state also takes steps to control for absentee voter fraud which is undoubtedly a more serious issue than in-person, but that doesn't invalidate the legitimacy of photo laws.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Sounds good, Liz. We will go ahead and table the whole racism issue for another day.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If there isn't an outright photo id requirement for registration and voting there needs to be proof of citizenship offered which basically comes back to possession of the same documents (birth certification, drivers license, passport etc).

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@viking68

Whatever else Trump did or didn't say that isn't exactly related to the question of the headline, on the available evidence Peña Nieto did not contradict Trump and the headline is wrong. The article interpolates "contradicts" from Peña Nieto's statement, in the lack of a firmer statement from Peña Nieto that they did discuss it and with Trump's assertion that they didn't, the article's headline is contradicted by the available evidence. The headline writers got overambitious and went too far with their headline, effectively they are accusing Trump of lying based on unsupported evidence that they interpolated (I was joking when I said maybe he dropped a bit and forgot).

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I can't reveal my sources, but I have gotten hold of a transcript of Donald Trump's meeting with Enrique Peña Nieto. Here it is:.

EPN: Mr. Trump, Mexico will never pay for a border wall.

DJP: Isn't this beautiful, just beautiful, to finally meet. You know I love the Mexicans. Great Taco Bowls. Great. Did I say great? I mean just beautiful, the best. And let me say, it's great to meet you, Enrique. I can call you Enrique, can't I?

EPN: No. I must stress to you idea of building a wall is insulting and demeaning to the Mexican people and we resent it. You must stop telling the American people this ridiculous fantasy.

DJP. Great. Wonderful, Enrique! I'm sure we're gonna be great friends. Call me Donald. Or The Donald. I got a good, a good, feeling about this. You and I are going to get along. We'll be friends. I just know it. Many of my best friends are Hispanic, you know. It's something people don't give me credit for. But that's the press for you. Is it the same here? How does the press treat you?

EPN: I must stress there is NO WAY, N-O-W-A-Y Mexico will pay one peso for any wall, virtual or otherwise, in your country. That's your problem. Not Mexico. Again, we WILL NOT PAY ONE PESE.

DJP. .... When you do something great, like inviting me for this meeting, do they give you any credit or do they just publish the most horrible lies about you? When I'm president that's going to stop.

[2349 words omitted]

Aid: Its time to go Mr. Trump.The press is waiting.

DJP: I've got a plane to catch. It's been great talking with you, Enrique. I can call you Enrique, can't I? Let's do lunch. We got a wonderful, -- THE BEST! -- Taco Bowl at Trump Tower grill. You'll love it. My Mexicans love it.

See? Trump was telling the truth, and so was Pena Nieto. Peña Nieto did tell Trump that Mexico wouldn't pay for the wall, and Trump didn't discuss it with him.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Black Sabbath: I can't reveal my sources, ...

Your post will soon be reworded and propagated as actual news by CNN, et al, ad nauseum.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@bass4funk

How do you know?

Your comments? How else? I don't know you, so your comments are all I have to go by. You're not exactly shy about sharing your thoughts.

So if these people need medical attention, how would or can we verify who these people say they are? You don't need any identification for going to see a doctor? Even first time? How would you pick up your pharmaceutical prescriptions???

So it's a healthcare issue for the poor now? Please... You might not get the real reason for the laws, but the Republican politicians do. They've let it slip on record more than once that it's to invalidate votes for Democrats.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Black Sabbath: "I can't reveal my sources, ..."

The source here is... get ready... Black Sabbath, lol

0 ( +0 / -0 )

turbostat: Whatever else Trump did or didn't say that isn't exactly related to the question of the headline

It has everything to do with the headline.

If Trumph wants to parse statements, then he should do it consistently. Maybe that is asking too much from a person who has never been held accountable for what he says.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Ha!!! Trump latino Adviser,s all quit on mass today. They are heading back to Mexico to team up with the Bandedoes to knock down Trumps Wall once he pay for and built It. Mexico will pay for the wall, LOL. That what China try to do with Barbarians and Trader when they wanted to pass to sell and buy or plundered pillage. They both laugh and just knock down part of the wall when they were not looking and savage the local Chinese. LOL. Man this is better then the Bold and Beautiful. LOL. Everytime Trump open his mouth it turns out to be a rerun of a American Soap opera LOL. I just can not stop bursting out laughgin even if I see a image of Trump, LOL. Just saying his name make me laugh.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"A person close to Mr. Peña Nieto" also says there was no 'contradiction'. Specifically:

The person added: “Before the conversation began, Mr. Peña Neto reiterated to Mr. Trump that Mexico won’t pay for any wall, and as agreed, they discussed other topics.”

The 'contradiction' was supplied after the fact by journalists, not by Pres. Peña Nieto.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/02/trump-changed-immigration-policy-speech-after-mexican-presidents-tweet.html

... A person close to Mr. Peña Nieto said that “since there was such a clear disagreement in preparatory conversations over issues about the wall and its payment, both parties agreed not to discuss them at the meeting, and instead talk about other topics, such as the great contribution that the Mexican community makes in the U.S., illegal drugs and weapons trafficking, bilateral trade, within North America and the rest of the world.” The person added: “Before the conversation began, Mr. Peña Neto reiterated to Mr. Trump that Mexico won’t pay for any wall, and as agreed, they discussed other topics.”

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Before we jump to conclusions about who said what, we should remember that it was actually the Mexican president who invited Trump for a meeting in the first place. I do not doubt that he was sure Trump would not accept and was caught off guard when he did. Now he is facing a huge backlash in Mexico and is trying to cover his ass, as they say.

I am puzzled why Mexicans would hold up placards saying "Trump not welcome in Mexico" when he would be there for only a few hours, but do not seem to understand that maybe Mexicans entering the US illegally might not be all that welcome there either. Who is responsible for all those illegal immigrants? The Mexican government has done exactly nothing to try and stop it, nor have they done anything to try and stop all the drug smuggling.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is interesting: "Trump Meets With Mexico's President, Hillary Clinton Shits Her Pants"

Youtube uploader Red Pill Philosophy
0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites