re: Our Orange President has spoken - Mexico WILL pay for the WALL

quote:

---

That entire post made not a single coherent argument, and rudderlessly drifts from the specific points we’ve been debating into your own opinions about more general ideas. You are all over the fricking place.

---

^This total copout is exactly the kind of thing you've accused me of.

quote:

---

You’re a sore loser who has been reduced to pride posting. That’s Texridder’s job.

---

Translation: PLEEEEEEEEEEASE SHUT UP 90

quote:

---

Why don’t you try again? I’ll wait.

---

I'm afraid I'll just have to refer you to the post you just pussied out of responding to.

In particular, you might sack up and defend your own "4 year old data" claim about the Pew numbers.

Or, your claim that the Pew estimates are based on 2008 numbers.

Or even your claim that the Trump policy paper didn't say they'd use the threat of Visa fee hikes as leverage for the one-time remittance.

At some point following, we can get back to talking about the Trump administration/campaign's position being one of a direct remittance, and when it shifted to "indirect" and over the "longer term".

quote:

---

This is you right now

---

i reject your white flag

quote:

---

This total copout is exactly the kind of thing you've accused me of

---

Sigh. You said that Trump’s a liar. Indirect payments weren’t debated prior to the election. Only direct, one time payments were promised. I’ve proven you wrong on this over and over again. My nuts are chaffed from swabbing your forehead. If you are too proud to admit you were wrong, that’s on you. Only your therapist and Jesus can unpack that with you.

quote:

---

In particular, you might sack up and defend your own "4 year old data" claim

---

Pew states:

quote:

---

The estimates in this report and previous Center publications since 2013 are based on survey data consistent with the censuses of 1990, 2000, and 2010.

---

They’ve only been able to validate their models through 2010 because there has been no census since then. The hard data they’ve used from dhs is up to fiscal 16. This is data from as early as October of 2015. Ok, so oops. 2.5 years not 4.

quote:

---

Or, your claim that the Pew estimates are based on 2008 numbers.

---

Ive made no such claim. Only that Pew’s numbers from 10 years ago (2008) have been validated and are consistent with contemporary census data, and are therefore the best estimates we have for that era.

Yale, uses the Pew study as a data point, but for the reasons above, adds other layers of more recent data to create a deeper more comprehensive look at the current state of illegal immigration.

The SS fraud study and the Bear Sterns study lend credence to Yale’s findings. Even Obama’s deportation chief thought the numbers were higher than Pew. Again, you don’t have to like it (we know you don’t), but it’s as good a study as any, and originates from a highly respected group of researchers.

quote:

---

Or even your claim that the Trump policy paper didn't say they'd use the threat of Visa fee hikes as leverage for the one-time remittance.

---

Jesus....
From the paper:

quote:

---

Visa fees: Even a small increase in visa fees could pay for the wall.

---

And you are back to ignoring the statement the campaign made is September of 2016 about cartel assets. You are lying in circles.

Try again. I’m into my second Tito’s and 7 and I’m just getting warm.

quote:

---

Indirect payments weren’t debated prior to the election. Only direct, one time payments were promised. I’ve proven you wrong on this over and over again.

---

You keep acting as though this has been Trump's position all along, and that it was known to Trump supporters. But his stated position unambiguously was a one-time payment from the mexican government, something you have not tried to deny until the post I'm responding to.

You have demonstrated nothing other than a rumor of internal discussion that apparently only got leaked by millionth-tier source Lifezette, and even that was after Nieto told Trump to eat shite to his face in August 2016. That falls pathetically short of any kind of "vigorous debate" that supposedly let the public in on his new, true position.

Trump's position on this remained the one-time remittance by Mexico, as stated on his policy paper, until he finally walked it back in a tweet he made in 2018.

Hilariously, the policy paper remains posted to this day. Extra-hilariously, it doesn't even hint at using shifts in the trade deficit to fund the wall, which is what his argument today is resting on entirely.

lol, just lol

quote:

---

They’ve only been able to validate their models through 2010 because there has been no census since then. The hard data they’ve used from dhs is up to fiscal 16. This is data from as early as October of 2015. Ok, so oops. 2.5 years not 4.

---

ACS is the most comprehensive basis available beyond full census, and both estimates are built off the most recent iteration of it, which by the way covers all of 2017. For real- nice effort though!

quote:

---

Ive made no such claim. Only that Pew’s numbers from 10 years ago (2008) have been validated

---

Wow, so when you describe Pew's November 2018 numbers as "Pew study, using validated 2008 numbers, that are not based on estimates" you're not saying that their 2018 estimates are based on 2008 data? If so, your words indicate the exact opposite. Keep up the good work!

quote:

---

Yale, uses the Pew study as a data point

---

You say this so transparently cluelessly, it's almost endearing. The Yale study doesn't use Pew's 2008 number, even if you think they should (after all, you said that Pew 08 number is "validated"). I guess I'll just point out to you, again, that the Yale SOM estimates something higher in the previous decade than what it estimates for 2016. Just like Pew.

Starting to feel for you here, bruh. (Not really.)

quote:

---

The SS fraud study and the Bear Sterns study lend credence to Yale’s findings.

---

Nope. Not unless they nail down several steps required to get from "mismatches" to "actual fraudulent use by illegal aliens working, per year".

Honestly the Yale one alone is worth discussion, if the discussion is the actual population, but this SSN one is worth dismissal out of hand here- it has no way of comparing the change in the number of illegals over time to begin with.

Still, we're not keeping count of your misses, so rest easy.

quote:

---

Jesus....
From the paper:

---

Why do you keep ignoring the sentence that follows in that very same bullet that says this leverage is part of the reason Mexico will back down and make the payment? Why do you also ignore the fact that the bullet itself is included in the list of ways to compel Mexico to make the payment?

quote:

---

And you are back to ignoring the statement the campaign made is September of 2016 about cartel assets.

---

LInk where "the campaign" made that "statement", or even breathed a word about it, if you can. I'll go on ignoring your claim giving the administration credit for it in the meantime.

quote:

---

I’m into my second Tito’s and 7 and I’m just getting warm.

---

Maybe today you'll be in a clearer state of mind!