Jump to content

Let's talk about the upcoming Mexican election


bolverk

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Sort of tin foil hat territory, but I firmly believe that powerful pockets are getting lined in America, and not just Sheriff Chuy in the Hidalgo County.

 

I alway thought it strange that somehow the Taliban was able to stamp out opium poppies in Afghanistan and then we go in there, and whoa, it's just too hard for the American military to stop this shit. 

Somebody gettin' paid

Would it shock any of you if the likes of Erik Prince got a cut of this shit? I am not saying he has, or does, but if that came to light, it would not surprise me in the least. That dude has a tiny shard of obsidian where most of us have a soul. 

 

 

 

If Prince is getting a cut, he's nowhere near the top of the graft hierarchy.

“Blackwater’s work with the CIA began when we provided specialized instructors and facilities that the Agency lacked"... “In the years that followed, the company became a virtual extension of the CIA because we were asked time and again to carry out dangerous missions, which the Agency either could not or would not do in-house.”

--Erik Prince, 2013

https://www.thedailybeast.com/exclusive-erik-prince-on-blackwaters-secret-cia-past

The CIA has "turned a blind eye" - at a minimum- for 70 years on heroin, opium and cocaine production and trafficking...Burma, Laos, Colombia, Honduras, Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti, Mexico just to name a few. I am not saying they are doing that here, but if Erik Prince is getting a cut, its via the payment of his invoices to his paymasters at Langley. That isn't something he has the clout to do unilaterally, IMO.

 

But at a minimum, CIA isn't helping the situation:

 

chartoftheday_11926_poppy_cultivation_an

 

Anyway, Alex Jones at Infowars, er, I mean Judy Woodruff at PBS Frontline summarized it pretty well 30 years ago.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/archive/gunsdrugscia.html

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

I hope it was a hammock made from fishing net...less of a mess that way

Exacto. By the time of the Great Hammock Collapse it was mostly down to odd liquid farts and dusty diarrhea. When I got moving again, I had a moment where I wondered if I was dead like Bruce Willis on 6th Sense, but somebody beeped a horn at me and cussed me for drifting over in traffic. WHATeverrrr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2018/06/28/political-murders-push-120-in-mexican-elections/

Amazing.  Hard to even grasp this.  If we had 1 or 2 pols killed there would be rioting in the streets and the police/military/ would be in full force.  130 in a year.  Mexico does not know what to do.  

We could help them out tremendously by ending the War on Drugs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

AMLO will win easily.

I wish him well. He seems like a throwback to the old PRI when, yeah, they got into everybody's business, but that also included keeping the crime bosses in line.

They had 15 or so years of real democracy and stunk it up. I found myself thinking of Germany without the Kaiser. What if the Kaiser could have stepped back in, in 1930s Germany? Just for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

I wish him well. He seems like a throwback to the old PRI when, yeah, they got into everybody's business, but that also included keeping the crime bosses in line.

They had 15 or so years of real democracy and stunk it up. I found myself thinking of Germany without the Kaiser. What if the Kaiser could have stepped back in, in 1930s Germany? Just for a while.

 

He was a stupid, vain, weak leader.  They would no doubt have somehow been responsible for the next World War, just as they were when he was in power for the 26 years prior to WW I. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

 

He was a stupid, vain, weak leader.  They would no doubt have somehow been responsible for the next World War, just as they were when he was in power for the 26 years prior to WW I. 

All true, but there's a good case to be made that we, and the Brits, backed the wrong side in WW1. 

 

HL Mencken, in 1931:

Quote

Most of England's appalling troubles today are due to a bad guess: she went into the war on the wrong side in 1914. The theory of her statesmen, in those days, was that, by joining France and Russia, she would give a death-blow to a dangerous rival, Germany, and so be free to run the world. But the scheme failed to work; moreover, it had unexpected and almost fatal results. Not only did Germany come out of the mess a dangerous rival still; France also became a rival, and a very formidable one. Worse, the United States was pumped up to immense proportions, and began to challenge England's control of the world's markets. The results are now visible: England has three competitors instead of one, and is steadily going downhill. If she had gone into the war on the German side she'd be in a much better situation today. The Germans would be grateful for the help and willing to pay for it (while the French are not); the French would be down and out, and hence unable to menace the peace of Europe; Germany would have Russia in Europe and there would be no Bolshevik nuisance; England would have all of Siberia and Central Asia, and there would be no Japanese threat and no Indian revolt; and the United States would still be a docile British colony, as it was in 1914. . . .

The United States made a similar mistake in 1917. Our real interests at the time were on the side of the Germans, whose general attitude of mind is far more American than that of any other people. If we had gone in on their side, England would be moribund today, and the dreadful job of pulling her down, which will now take us forty or fifty years, would be over. We'd have a free hand in the Pacific, and Germany would be running the whole Continent like a house of correction. In return for our connivance there she'd be glad to give us whatever we wanted elsewhere. There would be no Bolshevism in Russia and no Fascism in Italy. Our debtors would all be able to pay us. The Japs would be docile, and we'd be reorganizing Canada and probably also Australia. But we succumbed to a college professor [Wilson] who read Matthew Arnold, just as the English succumbed to a gay old dog who couldn't bear to think of Prussian MP's shutting down the Paris night-clubs.

As for the mistake the Russians made, I leave it to history.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2018 at 11:29 AM, sheeeit said:

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2018/06/28/political-murders-push-120-in-mexican-elections/

Amazing.  Hard to even grasp this.  If we had 1 or 2 pols killed there would be rioting in the streets and the police/military/ would be in full force.  130 in a year.  Mexico does not know what to do.  

They are slightly further along in their evolution of governmental corruption, dissolution of the middle class, etc...   This is the byproduct of governance focused almost solely on me and mine.  Give us another 50 years, we’ll catch up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

Mexico elected a President who will cease using the military against cartels and will give amnesty to Opium and Marijuana growers...  The socialist thing is unfortunate, but I think that's only part of the problem.

When will the immigration from California and New York to Mexico start?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

All true, but there's a good case to be made that we, and the Brits, backed the wrong side in WW1. 

 

HL Mencken, in 1931:

 

This completely ignores the role the Kaiser, Tirpitz and German diplomacy had in driving the English in to the arms of the French and Russians.  England actively sought an alliance with Germany for many years before the war.  The Kaiser thought he could string them along indefinitely while he let Tirpitz start a worldwide naval arms race.  The Kaiser was a moron with the emotional stability of an emo teenager who was steered in to war by the German military.  It is revisionist history to claim that England should have somehow overlooked all of that.

Edited by kevwun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To tie all this Kaiser-El Presidente thing together in a bow, do y'allsselves a favor and go read The Secret War in Mexico by Friedrich Katz:

https://www.amazon.com/Secret-War-Mexico-Mexican-Revolution/dp/0226425894

It's bad-ass. To sum up, broke poker player Carranza sits down to play with wealthy sharks named Britain, Germany, and the US. US wants to strip away northern Mexican territory, Germany wants to sabotage Mexican oil fields to jack with Britain while getting Mexicans to jump into suicidal war with US to pin down troops, and Britain wants to do a coup because it's tea time and they're peckish.

Carranza never draws better than a pair of twos, but manages to keep all of that from happening.

Also, by 1918 the Krauts figure they've got it all won, and are mainly just looking to improve their 1919 bidness options. Trivia: 2 gold Marks = 1 gold Peso.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mexico would be better off if we would just Annex them. Something I thought should happen for years. The Mexican people would love it, but the government, cartels, policia and every other corrupt organization would hate it. Instead of all the illegal immigration coming here, we would just bring the USA to you. This way we could use the Mexican money to pay for the wall.

We are having serious issues on the south borders and I'm not expecting the Mexican government ever fixing this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, ckhorn said:

Mexico would be better off if we would just Annex them. Something I thought should happen for years. The Mexican people would love it, but the government, cartels, policia and every other corrupt organization would hate it. Instead of all the illegal immigration coming here, we would just bring the USA to you. This way we could use the Mexican money to pay for the wall.

We are having serious issues on the south borders and I'm not expecting the Mexican government ever fixing this.

Lulz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ckhorn said:

You don't know many Mexicans do you.

I can't believe that there are people today espousing neo-Colonialism. I do know lots of Mexicans, and they have a fierce national pride, and they have seen what has just happened to Puerto Rico, and they could easily imagine themselves in Jose Boricua's zapatos. Second-class citizens in a bigoted country. Creo que no. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe that there are people today espousing neo-Colonialism. I do know lots of Mexicans, and they have a fierce national pride, and they have seen what has just happened to Puerto Rico, and they could easily imagine themselves in Jose Boricua's zapatos. Second-class citizens in a bigoted country. Creo que no. 
While I agree with you overall, it's quite a bit silly to imply that there is less bigotry in Mexico than in the US.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Huckleberry said:
3 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:
I can't believe that there are people today espousing neo-Colonialism. I do know lots of Mexicans, and they have a fierce national pride, and they have seen what has just happened to Puerto Rico, and they could easily imagine themselves in Jose Boricua's zapatos. Second-class citizens in a bigoted country. Creo que no. 

While I agree with you overall, it's quite a bit silly to imply that there is less bigotry in Mexico than in the US.

I did not mean to imply that at all. What I meant was even wealthy Mexicans would be treated as second-class citizens in some parts of America. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

I did not mean to imply that at all. What I meant was even wealthy Mexicans would be treated as second-class citizens in some parts of America. 

So you agree with Trump and we should build the wall. Even for the wealthy Mexicans.

You would be surprised how many Mexican people I work with that support Trump. Talking about men 40 plus.

PR has had a lot of problems for years, not just recently. Its to much Government dependency and some corruption (mostly laziness). I have PR family here and they are always needing help from the Government or from someone and usually get it. I guess this just US being bigoted.

This is to say that most PR people are not like this. My wife certainly isn't, not so much for the in-laws.

Edited by ckhorn
PR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ckhorn said:

So you agree with Trump and we should build the wall. Even for the wealthy Mexicans.

You would be surprised how many Mexican people I work with that support Trump. Talking about men 40 plus.

PR has had a lot of problems for years, not just recently. Its to much Government dependency and some corruption (mostly laziness). I have PR family here and they are always needing help from the Government or from someone and usually get it. I guess this just US being bigoted.

I read Spanish-language papers in Houston and have shit-tons of Mexican American friends. They bash on Trump pinatas for a reason, sabes?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

I read Spanish-language papers in Houston and have shit-tons of Mexican American friends. They bash on Trump pinatas for a reason, sabes?

This may be a problem. You read newspapers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Quote

Mexico's new government is set explore the possibility of legalizing drugs, as part of a policy to tackle the violent crime that grips the nation, incoming Interior Minister Olga Sanchez Cordero said on Tuesday.

Sanchez Cordero, a former Supreme Court judge, made the remark at a university seminar on the nation's cartel-fueled violence. Mexico's drug traffickers are the biggest suppliers of cocaine, heroin and other narcotics to the US.

"On the subject of decriminalizing drugs, Andres Manuel told me, and I quote: 'Carte blanche. Whatever is necessary to restore peace in this country. Let's open up the debate,'" Sanchez Cordero said.

Since Mexico deployed its army to fight drug trafficking in 2006, the country has been engulfed in a wave of violence that has seen more than 200,000 murders. The incoming interior minister said that this militarization policy was in violation of the constitutional statute that public safety should be in the responsibility of civilian authorities.

"What no one can deny with hard data is that, at least in the past 10 years, the Mexican government has been incapable of stopping violence and responding to it with institutional mechanisms," Sanchez Cordero said, in a clear rebuke to previous administrations.

...

https://www.dw.com/en/mexico-lopez-obrador-government-to-consider-legalization-of-drugs/a-44717636

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...