Second ('Third') Trump Presidency Thread


Guess it’s possible he was just talking to himself
Trump certainly loves to embellish. I have little doubt he was doing so here.

But let's be honest. None of the former POTUS's or their staff are going to admit to any sort of conversation with Trump where they agree with his policy. Particularly any of the former Dems.

So this tweet is rather meaningless.
 
Last edited:
Who's going to work the low skilled jobs? You willing to pay someone 20 an hour to pick berries in a field then pay 15 a pound for Strawberries? Or what really will happen is all our groceries will be imported.
Do we need 15-20 million people to pick berries and apples?
 
One of many low skilled jobs migrants can work. You like your dollar menu at McDonalds?
No actually, I don't eat McDonalds.

The crop production industry employs roughly 2 million people, illegal or not. Less than half of those are estimated to be illegal immigrants. If we want to let them stay to keep food costs down, then fine.

But most of the low skilled immigrants in the work force are working in construction, cleaning, or the restaurant industry. And yes, plenty of actual Americans are willing to do those jobs (and actually do those jobs for the same wages).
 
Trump certainly loves to embellish. I have little doubt he was doing so here.

But let's be honest. None of the former POTUS's or their staff are going to admit to any sort of conversation with Trump where they agree with his policy. Particularly any of the former Dems.

So this tweet means is rather meaningless.
If I were setting odds, I’d make Trump being full of shit the runaway favorite here
 
"WWJD?" Cute. But you're an atheist. You don't believe Jesus was divine, you don't believe the Bible is true, and you don't accept religious authority on anything else. So why do you try to use my morals against me? You reject Christianity 364 days a year until it conveniently backs your open-borders welfare stance, then it's 'WWJD?' Pick a lane.

Even if we humor your biblical cosplay for a second: Jesus never once told the Roman government to tax citizens and hand out free stuff to non-citizens. He never lobbied Caesar for expanded welfare programs. He preached personal, voluntary charity - sell your cloak and give to the poor yourself, help the stranger you personally encounter (Good Samaritan was one guy on the road, not a federal entitlement program). He fed the 5,000 with a miracle, not by raiding the treasury. The early church helped widows, orphans, and travelers out of their own pockets, not by forcing non-believers to fund it at gunpoint.

The actual social contract in a secular democracy is simple: Citizens pay taxes because they consent (via voting and the Constitution) to a system for themselves and their posterity. Non-citizens aren't part of that contract. They didn't fight in our wars, didn't build the infrastructure, didn't vote for the welfare state. Giving them automatic access to citizen-funded benefits is just theft by ballot. Take money from people who did consent and giving it to people who didn't. Private charity, churches, and voluntary organizations can (and do) help foreigners all day long. That's the Jesus model if y zou're into that. Government welfare isn't.

If your real argument is 'compassion requires open taxpayer-funded spigot for anyone who crosses the border,' then own the secular version: unlimited incentives create unlimited migration, bankrupt the system, and punish the actual citizens who built it. No Jesus helped individuals. He didn't destroy the village to save the stranger.

I ask again: why should a non citizen be given free lunch?

If you want to invoke Jesus, then we can pivot the conversation to abortion and ensure you're consistent in your newfound love of Christ
Well, What would Jesus Do?
Simple question

For a " Christian" nation one would think they would follow the principles and teaching of Christ.
Feed the children.
 
You think US citizens would take that rate to spend 8 hours a day working the field?
1. Yes I do, since more than half the work force in this area are either here legally or are natural born US citizens. And they make a similar wage.

2. Again, you're talking about roughly 1 million people in one area of the work force. I promise you illegals in construction are making similar rates to Americans in the construction field and in the restaurant industry.
 
If I were setting odds, I’d make Trump being full of shit the runaway favorite here
That's not really relevant to my point. You can both admit Trump was likely lying while also admitting that the statements from the former POTUS's staffs can be entirely disregarded.
 
That's not really relevant to my point. You can both admit Trump was likely lying while also admitting that the statements from the former POTUS's staffs can be entirely disregarded.
You can do both of those things, but you don’t have to. I think Trump is lying and I don’t think I have to “entirely disregard” what former POTUS staffs are saying.
 
You can do both of those things, but you don’t have to. I think Trump is lying and I don’t think I have to “entirely disregard” what former POTUS staffs are saying.
Their answer is going to be the same regardless. So yeah, I think we can disregard it.
 
Their answer is going to be the same regardless. So yeah, I think we can disregard it.
If a reporter called up the staff of say President Bush and said “President Trump claimed he talked to President Bush, who praised his actions in Iran, saying he wishes he did what Trump was able to do…can you confirm?” Then yes, I’d agree that the Bush staffer has reason to deny the conversation took place.

Alternatively, if a reporter called up a Bush staffer and said “can you confirm whether President Trump and President Bush were in contact this week,” devoid of all context, I’m not sure why the staffer has a good reason to lie. Confirming there was contact between the two wouldn’t be a tacit approval of Trump’s actions.

Devoid of more information, I’m not going to just assume the staffers all had a reason to lie.
 
If a reporter called up the staff of say President Bush and said “President Trump claimed he talked to President Bush, who praised his actions in Iran, saying he wishes he did what Trump was able to do…can you confirm?” Then yes, I’d agree that the Bush staffer has reason to deny the conversation took place.

Alternatively, if a reporter called up a Bush staffer and said “can you confirm whether President Trump and President Bush were in contact this week,” devoid of all context, I’m not sure why the staffer has a good reason to lie. Confirming there was contact between the two wouldn’t be a tacit approval of Trump’s actions.

Devoid of more information, I’m not going to just assume the staffers all had a reason to lie.
Their reason to lie is that none of the former POTUS's want any attachment to Trump whatsoever. None of them have a single positive thing to say about him since he first ran in 2016. Even GW has refused to support him in any of the elections.

Trump could literally call them up and ask them their opinion on what color to paint the interior of the new ball room and their staffs would still deny they ever spoke with him.
 
Well, What would Jesus Do?
Simple question

For a " Christian" nation one would think they would follow the principles and teaching of Christ.
Feed the children.
Christ did not teach to steal from people to give to others

Calling the US a christian nation would appal you, so not sure why you believe this is a useful argument. Instead its one that clearly shows youre out of an argument
 
Back
Top