But let's be honest.  You seem like an informed individual.  Did it not concern you, that he repeatedly insisted that China, Mexico, and NATO all owed money to us, when they didn't?  To you it came across as shorthand for them rectifying their own spending, border policies, and trade relationships.  But don't you see that you're in the minority, that the majority of those who heard it, literally thought that those countries owe us money, and if that point of view is allowed to go unchallenged, the next President might literally think that they owe us money?

Trump said that we had a trade deficit with China, Mexico was costing the U.S. large expenditures capturing and processing the illegal immigrants who streamed through their country to our border, and that NATO countries were bilking the U.S. for billions of dollars by knowingly not paying their obligated share. All of those are true statements. 

You're presenting an unsupported hypothetical while also assuming to speak for what others think.

He said Mexico would pay for the wall.  Did you forget that?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Whose military action? 

The Russians seemed to have taken the threat of the U.S. arming the Ukrainians with missiles, along with economic sanctions, pretty seriously. They're withdrawing troops.

These were your words: "Open sea lanes are critical for the support of free enterprise, and by extension democracy, around the world."

Did you not mean that open sea lanes are a function of United States military presence and action? How does it and how has that action led to democracy? The two are quite unrelated, but the direct cost to Americans yet to be born is directly related.

No, that's not what I meant. Keeping the sea lanes open to benefit free enterprise is directly supportive of establishing and maintaining democracy. Although, I get the distinct impression you believe it is strictly jingoistic.

---

Trump said that we had a trade deficit with China, Mexico was costing the U.S. large expenditures capturing and processing the illegal immigrants who streamed through their country to our border, and that NATO countries were bilking the U.S. for billions of dollars by knowingly not paying their obligated share. All of those are true statements. 

You're presenting an unsupported hypothetical while also assuming to speak for what others think.

He said Mexico would pay for the wall.  Did you forget that?

No, but your assertion was that Trump said Mexico owed us money. Do you deny their (in)actions have cost the U.S. large amounts of expenditure? For the record, I was never onboard with Mexico paying for the wall, but it would have been achievable. Instead, because of democrats, we continue to pour billions into increasingly futile attempts at controlling the southern border and secretly relocating hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of illegal immigrants throughout the country.

---

He said Mexico would pay for the wall.  Did you forget that?

No, but your assertion was that Trump said Mexico owed us money. Do you deny their (in)actions have cost the U.S. large amounts of expenditure? For the record, I was never onboard with Mexico paying for the wall, but it would have been achievable. Instead, because of democrats, we continue to pour billions into increasingly futile attempts at controlling the southern border and secretly relocating hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of illegal immigrants throughout the country.

For the record, I am in favor of controlling our border and keeping illegal immigrants out of the country, but that said, 

How would Mexico have paid for the wall?

---

These were your words: "Open sea lanes are critical for the support of free enterprise, and by extension democracy, around the world."

Did you not mean that open sea lanes are a function of United States military presence and action? How does it and how has that action led to democracy? The two are quite unrelated, but the direct cost to Americans yet to be born is directly related.

No, that's not what I meant. Keeping the sea lanes open to benefit free enterprise is directly supportive of establishing and maintaining democracy. Although, I get the distinct impression you believe it is strictly jingoistic.

How is the "free enterprise" allowed by open sea lanes supportive of establishing democracy? What was the last country to go from a non democracy to an actual democracy? (Not a farce democracy like China or Russia) how is that change related to "free enterprise" or open sea lanes?

What do you think jingoism is?

---

No, but your assertion was that Trump said Mexico owed us money. Do you deny their (in)actions have cost the U.S. large amounts of expenditure? For the record, I was never onboard with Mexico paying for the wall, but it would have been achievable. Instead, because of democrats, we continue to pour billions into increasingly futile attempts at controlling the southern border and secretly relocating hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of illegal immigrants throughout the country.

For the record, I am in favor of controlling our border and keeping illegal immigrants out of the country, but that said, 

How would Mexico have paid for the wall?

Governments have myriad methods of extracting money from others such as slight increases in tariffs and entrance fees for rail and road commerce heading north. I'm sure there's plenty of other ways to achieve it. It doesn't have to a specific 'Border Wall Fee', just income via various means to offset the cost of the wall.

---

No, that's not what I meant. Keeping the sea lanes open to benefit free enterprise is directly supportive of establishing and maintaining democracy. Although, I get the distinct impression you believe it is strictly jingoistic.

How is the "free enterprise" allowed by open sea lanes supportive of establishing democracy? What was the last country to go from a non democracy to an actual democracy? (Not a farce democracy like China or Russia) how is that change related to "free enterprise" or open sea lanes?

What do you think jingoism is?

Korea and Japan as well as numerous eastern European countries are benefitting from free enterprise and democracy. 

We can go back and forth all day. What it comes down to is whether you believe the U.S., which is singularly capable of keeping the world's sea lanes open, should be providing that service for everyone's benefit, or not. If not, then be prepared for what the world becomes in its absence. Free trade and commerce are key ingredients of peace. The cost of keeping sea lanes open pale in comparison to the results if we do not.

---

Democracy. What a funny word people just toss around.

There hasn't been a real democracy since ancient Greece.

You find one country that allows all its citizens to vote on all aspects of Government and then I can say yep, that's a democracy.

Constitutional Republic. We elect people to represent us and then 10% of the time we get a chance to vote on actual amendments and law changes.

---

For the record, I am in favor of controlling our border and keeping illegal immigrants out of the country, but that said, 

How would Mexico have paid for the wall?

Governments have myriad methods of extracting money from others such as slight increases in tariffs and entrance fees for rail and road commerce heading north. I'm sure there's plenty of other ways to achieve it. It doesn't have to a specific 'Border Wall Fee', just income via various means to offset the cost of the wall.

If you charge a tariff, you are making the American consumer pay for the wall.  Not Mexico.   

To me, and to any reasonable person, "Mexico will pay for the wall" means the Mexican government will pay the cost of the wall.  There was no chance of that happening.

---

Governments have myriad methods of extracting money from others such as slight increases in tariffs and entrance fees for rail and road commerce heading north. I'm sure there's plenty of other ways to achieve it. It doesn't have to a specific 'Border Wall Fee', just income via various means to offset the cost of the wall.

If you charge a tariff, you are making the American consumer pay for the wall.  Not Mexico.   

To me, and to any reasonable person, "Mexico will pay for the wall" means the Mexican government will pay the cost of the wall.  There was no chance of that happening.

Gold is just a shiny metal people decided was worth something.

Money is just paper based on the Gold that country has.....

Everything of value is only of value because we as a people have deemed it so.

---

If you charge a tariff, you are making the American consumer pay for the wall.  Not Mexico.   

To me, and to any reasonable person, "Mexico will pay for the wall" means the Mexican government will pay the cost of the wall.  There was no chance of that happening.

Gold is just a shiny metal people decided was worth something.

Money is just paper based on the Gold that country has.....

Everything of value is only of value because we as a people have deemed it so.

The first sentence is correct.  

The second sentence is not true.  Money is not based on gold.  

The third sentence is arguable.  There are a lot of things that have value for very good reasons that go way beyond people deeming it so.

---

Governments have myriad methods of extracting money from others such as slight increases in tariffs and entrance fees for rail and road commerce heading north. I'm sure there's plenty of other ways to achieve it. It doesn't have to a specific 'Border Wall Fee', just income via various means to offset the cost of the wall.

If you charge a tariff, you are making the American consumer pay for the wall.  Not Mexico.   

To me, and to any reasonable person, "Mexico will pay for the wall" means the Mexican government will pay the cost of the wall.  There was no chance of that happening.

A tariff is not the only lever, just one I presented. There are various ways to extract money. It was worth a shot, but the walking rift named Donald Trump ensured it never had a chance.

---

Gold is just a shiny metal people decided was worth something.

Money is just paper based on the Gold that country has.....

Everything of value is only of value because we as a people have deemed it so.

The first sentence is correct.  

The second sentence is not true.  Money is not based on gold.  

The third sentence is arguable.  There are a lot of things that have value for very good reasons that go way beyond people deeming it so.

...did Aliens decide they have monetary value?

The reality is - money, stocks, all that crap... is made up. Gold is the only true "real" measure of wealth as stipulated since human time began.

Yet still - it has value only because we as human beings deemed it had value.

It takes no money to mine anything, to create anything. It takes humans willing to do it. So it takes humans willing to teach it. So we needed money. So we invented it.

Oh... and I guess its just a coincidence that all the "richest" countries all have the highest gold reserves? The United States is #1 in that category by the way.

---

How is the "free enterprise" allowed by open sea lanes supportive of establishing democracy? What was the last country to go from a non democracy to an actual democracy? (Not a farce democracy like China or Russia) how is that change related to "free enterprise" or open sea lanes?

What do you think jingoism is?

Korea and Japan as well as numerous eastern European countries are benefitting from free enterprise and democracy. 

We can go back and forth all day. What it comes down to is whether you believe the U.S., which is singularly capable of keeping the world's sea lanes open, should be providing that service for everyone's benefit, or not. If not, then be prepared for what the world becomes in its absence. Free trade and commerce are key ingredients of peace. The cost of keeping sea lanes open pale in comparison to the results if we do not.

We don't have to go back and forth on it, you could just admit you were incorrect in your assertions, being wrong isn't a problem if you're willing to change and be right.

---

Korea and Japan as well as numerous eastern European countries are benefitting from free enterprise and democracy. 

We can go back and forth all day. What it comes down to is whether you believe the U.S., which is singularly capable of keeping the world's sea lanes open, should be providing that service for everyone's benefit, or not. If not, then be prepared for what the world becomes in its absence. Free trade and commerce are key ingredients of peace. The cost of keeping sea lanes open pale in comparison to the results if we do not.

We don't have to go back and forth on it, you could just admit you were incorrect in your assertions, being wrong isn't a problem if you're willing to change and be right.

But why? You haven't proven me wrong.

I love your little 'I'm right and you're wrong' schtick. So cute.

---

The first sentence is correct.  

The second sentence is not true.  Money is not based on gold.  

The third sentence is arguable.  There are a lot of things that have value for very good reasons that go way beyond people deeming it so.

...did Aliens decide they have monetary value?

The reality is - money, stocks, all that crap... is made up. Gold is the only true "real" measure of wealth as stipulated since human time began.

Yet still - it has value only because we as human beings deemed it had value.

It takes no money to mine anything, to create anything. It takes humans willing to do it. So it takes humans willing to teach it. So we needed money. So we invented it.

Oh... and I guess its just a coincidence that all the "richest" countries all have the highest gold reserves? The United States is #1 in that category by the way.

I don't know where you get these ideas about gold, but here are the facts.  

Gold is only worth something because people want it.  It has limited industrial use.  It's use is mostly for jewelry or other decoration, or as gold coins.  Gold doesn't do anything.  We mine it, we melt it down, we put it in a vault and we guard it.  Why does it have any value?  It's pretty.  It never tarnishes.  It's fun to handle, because it's heavy and pretty.   But it's not a productive asset.  And money is not backed by gold, as you asserted.  The US abandoned the gold standard in 1971.  We use fiat money.    

A share of stock, on the other hand, has real value because it represents part ownership of a business.  Unlike gold, it's a productive asset.  

Gold is not the "only true measure of wealth as stipulated since human time began."  Far from it.  Before the invention of money, wealth could be measured in many ways.  How many cows you own. how much land you own, how many wives or slaves you had, etc.  

And it's irrelevant that the US has the highest gold reserves in the world.

---

We don't have to go back and forth on it, you could just admit you were incorrect in your assertions, being wrong isn't a problem if you're willing to change and be right.

But why? You haven't proven me wrong.

I love your little 'I'm right and you're wrong' schtick. So cute.

It's not up to me to prove your assertions wrong, it's up to you too show they're right.

Rather than do that you hand wave and make more assertions about how bad things would be if they were different.

---

...did Aliens decide they have monetary value?

The reality is - money, stocks, all that crap... is made up. Gold is the only true "real" measure of wealth as stipulated since human time began.

Yet still - it has value only because we as human beings deemed it had value.

It takes no money to mine anything, to create anything. It takes humans willing to do it. So it takes humans willing to teach it. So we needed money. So we invented it.

Oh... and I guess its just a coincidence that all the "richest" countries all have the highest gold reserves? The United States is #1 in that category by the way.

I don't know where you get these ideas about gold, but here are the facts.  

Gold is only worth something because people want it.  It has limited industrial use.  It's use is mostly for jewelry or other decoration, or as gold coins.  Gold doesn't do anything.  We mine it, we melt it down, we put it in a vault and we guard it.  Why does it have any value?  It's pretty.  It never tarnishes.  It's fun to handle, because it's heavy and pretty.   But it's not a productive asset.  And money is not backed by gold, as you asserted.  The US abandoned the gold standard in 1971.  We use fiat money.    

A share of stock, on the other hand, has real value because it represents part ownership of a business.  Unlike gold, it's a productive asset.  

Gold is not the "only true measure of wealth as stipulated since human time began."  Far from it.  Before the invention of money, wealth could be measured in many ways.  How many cows you own. how much land you own, how many wives or slaves you had, etc.  

And it's irrelevant that the US has the highest gold reserves in the world.

That’s a fact. Gold is very malleable, is an excellent electrical conductor and is corrosion proof, so it’s useful in very expensive and selective electronic circuits. Other than that, vanity is its value. 

As a matter of fact, they use it in the canopies of ECCM aircraft to prevent interference with cockpit instruments.

---

But why? You haven't proven me wrong.

I love your little 'I'm right and you're wrong' schtick. So cute.

It's not up to me to prove your assertions wrong, it's up to you too show they're right.

Rather than do that you hand wave and make more assertions about how bad things would be if they were different.

I did show they were right and post WWII history bears me out. If you don't want to agree, then that's fine. Even if you want to delude yourself into thinking that you're right and I'm wrong, that's fine too. You know what they say about opinions.

---

It's not my position that gold is a status of wealth.

It's my position that literally nothing has value unless humans say so.

---