• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Trump responds to former Mexican president's comments: "The Wall Just Got Higher"

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Team Alucard

Banned
Per MSNBC

Donald Trump on the day New Hampshire voters head to the polls in the primary election estimated for the first time that his infamous wall on the southern border would cost $8 billion — and insisted yet again that Mexico will pay for it.

The candidate added that his wall will probably be 35 to 40 feet high — a “real wall” he said. And that it will be one that “actually looks good, you know, as good as a wall is going to look.”

Trump declared last fall that if elected president of the United States, he would build a wall along the Mexican border — and that the country would shell out to make it happen for him.

“I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall,” Trump said in his presidential announcement speech. ”Mark my words.”

Hall noted that just yesterday, the former president of Mexico called Trump’s idea for a wall “stupid,” adding that “we are not going to pay any single cent.” Probing how he plans to get Mexico to pay for his wall, Trump responded, “Mexico makes a fortune. Mexico is going to pay. And I heard he said that we will not pay. Guess what? The wall just got higher.”
Click to expand...
 
D

Dryk

Member
People said Pacific Rim's parody of politicians proposing ineffectual solutions to satiate the masses was too unrealistic to work properly as parody. People were fucking wrong.
 
A

Amir0x

Banned
Slayven said:
The big take away from this election cycle will be you can be bigoted as fuck and ride high and far
Click to expand...

I think that's an ancillary point to the real issue that this election cycle is making everyone take away: that if you find a way to suffocate your opponents from news coverage, no matter how you do it, the end result is going to be very beneficial for a campaign. It actually exposes a pretty big problem with our election system, and one that isn't even easily fixed without undermining American values.
 
P

params7

Banned
EOhBR0K.png
 
G

GoldenEye 007

Member
Amir0x said:
I think that's an ancillary point to the real issue that this election cycle is making everyone take away: that if you find a way to suffocate your opponents from news coverage, no matter how you do it, the end result is going to be very beneficial for a campaign. It actually exposes a pretty big problem with our election system, and one that isn't even easily fixed without undermining American values.
Click to expand...

This has been a thing since at least JFK/Nixon. Despite Kennedy being a Catholic, which was a massive deal at the time, he shined due to TV appearances. Even though on content, people felt Nixon was stronger on his radio performances. But because Nixon sweated on TV and just didn't look as good, it played a big role on the outcome.

Now obviously it's great we ended up with JFK at the time, but yeah, people seem to be all about appearances and energy. Whether or not that energy has a solid foundation.
 
A

Aylinato

Member
Amir0x said:
I think that's an ancillary point to the real issue that this election cycle is making everyone take away: that if you find a way to suffocate your opponents from news coverage, no matter how you do it, the end result is going to be very beneficial for a campaign. It actually exposes a pretty big problem with our election system, and one that isn't even easily fixed without undermining American values.
Click to expand...



You could just break up the monopoly of the major news outlets, that would actually help the situation out a lot.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Aylinato said:
You could just break up the monopoly of the major news outlets, that would actually help the situation out a lot.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't do shit. The issue is the news has to turn a profit. We'd need to mandate equal coverage of all candidates regardless of position to fix the issue.
 
D

Darkgran

Member
So how long is it going to take to build this wall??

Let's say we built 1 mile per week..52 miles per year..you're looking at completion in the year 2054...
 
G

GoldenEye 007

Member
Darkgran said:
So how long is it going to take to build this wall??

Let's say we built 1 mile per week..52 miles per year..you're looking at completion in the year 2054...
Click to expand...

For a major construction project like that, it's not shocking. I mean the original portion of the interstate system took 35 years to complete, IIRC and it started in the 1950s. A wall is much more simple to implement and automation has improved since the 1950s. It'd take a decade or so at most, only limiting factor being funding.

But none of this matters since it'll never actually happen!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Vince McMahon / Brock Lesner Accused of Sex Trafficking and other weird shit
2 3
149
14K
Grildon Tundy replied
  • Locked
Elon Musk vs Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court
Social Opinion News
12
1K
AJUMP23 replied
Former Naughty Dog programmer talks about how a slightly different ending was considered for TLOU 2 (translated from 2020 interview)
2 3
146
8K
cormack12 replied
These bugs come out at nighttime, and attacking victims, they silently kill or leave them with a lifelong infection
33
3K
Happosai replied
Bobby Kotick, former CEO of Activision, Interested in Buying Tik-Tok
2 3
143
7K
Gameplay Gods Bless replied
Top Bottom