What does Trump say about Trump's intentions? A discussion thread for official Trump campaign positions

[Politesse]

There's been much discussion lately about former president Donald Trump's intentions, and what he intends to do with the power he will wield should he retake his former position in November. Now that he has officially accepted his party's nomination, I thought it might be worthwhile to dial back the speculation just a little bit and look explicitly at what Trump himself (and those authorized to speak for him) have said about those intentions. Are his ideas good? Bad? Dangerous or innocuous? Rational or emotive? Spelled or mispelled?

My idea for the structure of this thread is to periodically supply a new quotation and introduce it for discussion. Then, whoever likes can chime in and help explore the implications of each passage. I will try to keep primary documents and my own commentary strictly to separate posts, and I encourage anyone who is interested in the discussion to opine at will the passage we are currently discussing, or if you like, any those we have already discussed; it would be best to make it clear which passage you're referencing. For clarity's sake, my hope is that we will stick to concrete statements by Trump and his people, not external sources telling us about Trump.

I'll be starting out the discussion with a study of his official campaign positions, as stated on his official campaign webpage. Attempting to access this from the main website is currently impossible due to a seeming paywall preventing non-donors from proceeding; however, this can be easily circumvented by simply navigating directly to https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform.

We begin with Trump's 20 Core Promises, as outlined at the link above.

 

[Politesse]

1. SEAL THE BORDER AND STOP THE MIGRANT INVASION

 

[Politesse]

It will surprise no one that I take considerable issue with this. It's not any accident or coincidence that this is the first item, and the way ti is worded is extremely telling. It suggests a much more simplistic understanding of immigration issues than is entirely healthy, and as with many presidential promises, suggests a much more authoritarian solution than can actually be accomplished.

Our problem begins with "SEAL THE BORDER". The singular suggests a single border of concern, and I think it is no secret that what Trump actually means here is the southern border that divides the United States from Mexico. Covering this entire border with walls and guns was a major campaign promise of Trump's previous presidency, and as we all know, it was a promise that was left unfulfilled. It will again; fully "sealing" the border with a wall is not practically feasible, nor do most immigration experts feel that it would be worth the monumental expense to the treasury to accomplish such a thing. Walling off the border and keeping it walled has been a major project for multiple presidencies now, and it has not succeeded in slowing the rate at which new immigrants into the US, despite growing ever more expensive by the year:

image is from Taxpayers for Common Sense: https://www.taxpayer.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/UPDATED-March-2019-Border-costs-to-date.pdf

What is the real cost of immigration into the United States, that justifies the sacrifice of billions of dollars thrown after "solutions" that do not appear to be stemming the problem at all? Aside from the inherent stupidity and cruelty of trying to end refugee migrations, it's an expensive proposition. We're often told that Republicans are the "party of fiscal responsibility". Where is that responsibility in this case? We are throwing away more money trying to wall and re-wall a border than most countries have to spend on any project, and I do not see that it financially benefits us in anyway. Who benefits from the construction of this wall, aside from the contractors who are building it? Not that these should be discounted, but if we want to have the government spend billions on infrastructure, I personally think those billions should be invested in infrastructure that all Americans can use and profit from, not on a fantastic and ineffective walling project.

Especially since it does nothing to "seal" the rest of our borders. I suppose if we were to be literal in interpreting the words of Trump, we would have to assume that the entire border is to be somehow "sealed". Canada, the ports. Hey, why stop there, walls around all our coasts and islands, too. Yes, I know this isn't what Trump means. But it is what he says. If what he wants is only a sealed US/Mexico border, he should say so. But since he hasn't, let's consider for second the possibility of an even more expensive, physically impossible, and economically injurious "sealing" of all of our land coastal borders. Does that sound like a good idea? Yeah, I didn't think so. But if that can't be done, sealing only a single border is unlikely to stem immigration altogether. If someone has already walked the 4,205km from Guatemala City to Tijuana with the intention of entering the US, it seems very unlikely that they will give up at that point simply because they have then hit a physical wall. They will find a way around, under, or... just walk up to the border control stration and request entry, which is actually what the majority of people who arrive at our Southern border do anyway.

 

[laughing dog]

No offense, but why are you taking anything that comes out of Mr. Trump's piehole seriously? History is not on the side of taking his promises seriously.

 

[TSwizzle]

If what he wants is only a sealed US/Mexico border, he should say so.

He does say "the Southern border".

 

[Politesse]

If what he wants is only a sealed US/Mexico border, he should say so.

He does say "the Southern border".

I am, as I said, sticking to what is here presented as his "20 Core Promises", as quoted directly from his website. We can get to other speeches and the like at another time. Do you agree with my other points?

 

[Gospel]

Don't trouble yourself. It will only result in a daily mail post.

 

[Elixir]

No offense, but why are you taking anything that comes out of Mr. Trump's piehole seriously?

Right? I think Poli was taking a shot at the question "What IF Trump had any idea what he was saying (other than that he thought someone wanted to hear it)?"

 

[Politesse]

No offense, but why are you taking anything that comes out of Mr. Trump's piehole seriously? History is not on the side of taking his promises seriously.

I do have a broader point to make, here. No, his ambitions do not necesarily stop with what he is willing to publically admit. But that doesn't mean that the things he is willing to publically admit are above reproach or critique. If it were merely a choice between "the acceptable public face" and "what his critics accuse him of", one might simply decide that what his critics say is wrong, that they are lying or overreacting. But if what Trump himself says is disastrous in and of itself, then we should not re-elect him to office whether you believe the accusations of his critics or not. I also think that the framing of his platform, now, is a good heads-up as to how we should expect his policies and actions to be framed over the next four years. This can effect even things like what future bills proposed to the legislature will be titles and how they will be presented to the public. A matter important to all of us here on the forum, not just those of us privileged to have a vote in the election. I think, and will always think, that it is worth the time to do a smidgen of research into how one's opponent views the world and chooses to portray it to others.

 

[Politesse]

Don't trouble yourself. It will only result in a daily mail post.

Bring it on.

 

[Elixir]

No offense, but why are you taking anything that comes out of Mr. Trump's piehole seriously? History is not on the side of taking his promises seriously.

I do have a broader point to make, here. No, his ambitions do not necesarily stop with what he is willing to publically admit. But that doesn't mean that the things he is willing to publically admit are above reproach or critique. If it were merely a choice between "the acceptable public face" and "what his critics accuse him of", one might simply decide that what his critics say is wrong, that they are lying or overreacting. But if what Trump himself says is disastrous in and of itself, then we should not re-elect him to office whether you believe the accusations of his critics or not. I also think that the framing of his platform, now, is a good heads-up as to how we should expect his policies and actions to be framed over the next four years. This can effect even things like what future bills proposed to the legislature will be titles and how they will be presented to the public. A matter important to all of us here on the forum, not just those of us privileged to have a vote in the election. I think, and will always think, that it is worth the time to do a smidgen of research into how one's opponent views the world and chooses to portray it to others.

Does anything on that 20-point list NOT fall into the categories of "stuff he can't do" or "stuff he won't do"? His ambitions do not stop with what he is willing to publicly admit; he obviously wants to be richer than his Uncle Vlad. But his willingness to lie has no limit whatsoever, other than what he thinks his idiot followers will believe in sufficient number.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Is he going to build another wall or just make it taller?

 

[Patooka]

I can't think of anything more unproductive than a discussion on Trump's "campaign position". He doesn't have one. All of his policies are nothing more detailed than 3 word slogans and any statement he makes on an issue is a complete 180 on a position he's had previously. He is literally the Schrodinger's Taint of politics.

 

[Gospel]

From the bottom of page three of the Preamble it does specify the southern boarder. It's also mentioned in Commitment #1.

We must secure our Southern Border by completing the Border Wall that President Trump started.

 

[TSwizzle]

If what he wants is only a sealed US/Mexico border, he should say so.

He does say "the Southern border".

I am, as I said, sticking to what is here presented as his "20 Core Promises", {snip}

It's not like this is hidden, there is a link for more information on it. Are you just critiquing the website or is there something else?

 

[Gospel]

What I find odd is the overwhelming emphasis on Republicans, as if they are, and always have been, the only Americans. I suppose when some Americans say "Not my president," it aligns with Trump's admission?

 

[Gospel]

If what he wants is only a sealed US/Mexico border, he should say so.

He does say "the Southern border".

I am, as I said, sticking to what is here presented as his "20 Core Promises", {snip}

It's not like this is hidden, there is a link for more information on it. Are you just critiquing the website or is there something else?

Oh look, words. You know if you spend more time sharing info instead of feelings you might actually be useful.

 

[TSwizzle]

If what he wants is only a sealed US/Mexico border, he should say so.

He does say "the Southern border".

I am, as I said, sticking to what is here presented as his "20 Core Promises", {snip}

It's not like this is hidden, there is a link for more information on it. Are you just critiquing the website or is there something else?

Oh look, words. You know if you spend more time sharing info instead of feelings you might actually be useful.

Huh? I didn't reply to you, what are you blathering on about now? Why don't you respond to what ever it is Politesse is talking about?

 

[Politesse]

If what he wants is only a sealed US/Mexico border, he should say so.

He does say "the Southern border".

I am, as I said, sticking to what is here presented as his "20 Core Promises", {snip}

It's not like this is hidden, there is a link for more information on it. Are you just critiquing the website or is there something else?

One thing at a time. The 20 Core Promises are the public face of Trump's policy, the Cliff'Notes version. Intended to be the first summary and likely the only summary that most voters will read, if they even get that far. I think it is valid to critique the document on its own terms. Do you agree with the rest of my analysis?

 

[TSwizzle]

Do you agree with my other points?


1. SEAL THE BORDER AND STOP THE MIGRANT INVASION

It's not any accident or coincidence that this is the first item, and the way ti is worded is extremely telling. It suggests a much more simplistic understanding of immigration issues than is entirely healthy, and as with many presidential promises, suggests a much more authoritarian solution than can actually be accomplished.

I would agree with the part in bold.