• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

bafkreifuuszyl5oggufglktdi5lcxuuta7ahddozod4mfxxaqz5e3yxmfq@jpeg
 
zeke said:

View: https://x.com/SawyerHackett/status/1882842669539611027
Click to expand...


It tracks a poll I mentioned a while back — Trump’s “huge” mandate rests on three things : border toughness, defeat woke and lower prices (not possible)…. everything else like cutting entitlements, tariffs, deporting immigrants, etc are not well liked by the public… if he overplays his hand, his approval rating will sink to Biden levels
 
CH1 said:
It tracks a poll I mentioned a while back — Trump’s “huge” mandate rests on three things : border toughness, defeat woke and lower prices (not possible)…. everything else like cutting entitlements, tariffs, deporting immigrants, etc are not well liked by the public… if he overplays his hand, his approval rating will sink to Biden levels
Click to expand...
But so what? He doesn’t need anyone's approval anymore. Why can't people accept that American democracy isn't going to exist 4 years from now? Trump is essentially President for life. And MAGA and Project 2025 will ensure that they never lose another election.
 
hockeylover said:
www.rollingstone.com

Here's What Trump's Mexico Invasion Plan Could Look Like

As Donald Trump and his next administration threaten Mexican drug cartels, experts warn their plan could endanger Americans.
www.rollingstone.com www.rollingstone.com

rolling stone's reporting a soft invasion of mexico is not a matter of if but to what extent.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I expect some adventurism. I think there's a few blindspots on the US side of things though:

1) Weapons & Training: They're not wrong that the cartels usually get folded in direct confrontation with the mexican military. But a bunch of that comes down to the Mexican military picking the terms of engagement each time (they've famously backed down a number of times, most notably during the Culiacanazo a few years ago). Because the escalation of the contact points between the two have been managed like this, the cartel hasn't invested in expanding their better trained, and better equipped forces...which probably are near peer to standard mexican infantry. If this became a broader persistent conflict, I'd expect the cartels to acquire better weapons including handheld anti air capabilities. US special forces would be pretty reliant on helicopters for transportation through a lot of Mexico, and those are very vulnerable to stingers and other hand held anti air missiles.

2) I touched on it yesterday, but the decentralized nature of the modern cartels makes this a really extensive intel operation. The most likely thing the cartels will do is stand down, put a temporary pause on operations and wait the Americans out. A few big dogs will still get captured/killed, but the networks will remain and when Trump proclaims victory after shit goes quiet for 6 weeks, the cartels will ramp up.

I mean, I wish their was an easy and fast way to beat the cartels. I move down to Mexico in just under 2 years now and it's the one significant concern point I have about the move. A Mexico without cartel violence sounds fucking wonderful, but I don't see it as plausible using those types of methods.
 
Last edited:
MindzEye said:
Yeah, I expect some adventurism. I think there's a few blindspots on the US side of things though:

1) Weapons & Training: They're not wrong that the cartels usually get folded in direct confrontation with the mexican military. But a bunch of that comes down to the Mexican military picking the terms of engagement each time (they've famously backed down a number of times, most notably during the Culiacanazo a few years ago). Because the escalation of the contact points between the two have been managed like this, the cartel hasn't invested in expanding their better trained, and better equipped forces...which probably are near peer to standard mexican infantry. If this became a broader persistent conflict, I'd expect the cartels to acquire better weapons including handheld anti air capabilities. US special forces would be pretty reliant on helicopters for transportation through a lot of Mexico, and those are very vulnerable to stingers and other hand held anti air missiles.

2) I touched on it yesterday, but the decentralized nature of the modern cartels makes this a really extensive intel operation. The most likely thing the cartels will do is stand down, but a temporary pause on operations and wait the Americans out. A few big dogs will still get captured/killed, but the networks will remain and when Trump proclaims victory after shit goes quiet for 6 weeks, the cartels will ramp up.

I mean, I wish their was an easy and fast way to beat the cartels. I move down to Mexico in just under 2 years now and it's the one significant concern point I have about the move. A Mexico without cartel violence sounds fucking wonderful, but I don't see it as plausible using those types of methods.
Click to expand...
It is certainly worth talking about, I have often wondered what the best way is for Mexico to get rid of these cartels. Kind of like trying to get rid of the mob in America, which has at least been trimmed down to a large extent the past couple of decades. They're obviously horrific people peddling drugs, trafficking humans and murdering left and right.

It's hard to get traction in the media or in the courts when they're assassinating journalists and judges. I have wondered if some kind of immunity program could work, huge government crackdown combined with immunity and money for cartel leaders who want to become legit. They themselves would probably get taken out, though.

That being said, this is an extremely difficult challenge for anybody, and any operation led by Donald Trump has very little chance of success. Will be very interesting to see what happens...
 
It was obvious but good to hear from the horse's mouth

Why did Paul Krugman leave the New York Times?​


…in an interview, he said the circumstances of his job changed so sharply in 2024 that he decided he had to quit. He had been writing two columns and a newsletter every week, until September, when, Krugman said, Healy told him the newsletter was being killed.
“That was my Network moment,” Krugman said. “‘I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore’”—a quote from the Howard Beale character in Paddy Chayefsky’s 1976 film.
…there was a condition: if he wanted to keep the newsletter, the frequency of his column would have to be cut in half, to once a week.
Krugman rejected that offer…
The offer to reinstate the newsletter did nothing to placate Krugman, who had another serious complaint. “I’ve always been very, very lightly edited on the column,” he said. “And that stopped being the case. The editing became extremely intrusive. It was very much toning down of my voice, toning down of the feel, and a lot of pressure for what I considered false equivalence.” And, increasingly, attempts “to dictate the subject.”
“I approached Mondays and Thursdays with dread,” Krugman continued, “and often spent the afternoon in a rage. Patrick often—not always—rewrote crucial passages; I would then do a rewrite of his rewrite to restore the original sense, and felt that I was putting more work—certainly more emotional energy—into repairing the damage from his editing than I put into writing the original draft. It’s true that nothing was published without my approval; but the back-and-forth, to my eye, both made my life hell and left the columns flat and colorless.”
Click to expand...
that is from Charles Kaiser at Columbia Journalism Review.
 
axlsalinger said:
It is certainly worth talking about, I have often wondered what the best way is for Mexico to get rid of these cartels. Kind of like trying to get rid of the mob in America, which has at least been trimmed down to a large extent the past couple of decades. They're obviously horrific people peddling drugs, trafficking humans and murdering left and right.

It's hard to get traction in the media or in the courts when they're assassinating journalists and judges. I have wondered if some kind of immunity program could work, huge government crackdown combined with immunity and money for cartel leaders who want to become legit. They themselves would probably get taken out, though.

That being said, this is an extremely difficult challenge for anybody, and any operation led by Donald Trump has very little chance of success. Will be very interesting to see what happens...
Click to expand...

It's an issue of generational poverty and economics, at least when you're viewing it at the scale it's currently at. Kids from extreme poverty (rural or urban, but mostly rural) get targeted as workers in their early teens, get lured in doing odd jobs (look outs, deliveries, etc) for a bit of money that keeps them (and their family) eating. The kids who show "promise" get brought deeper in, usually hooked on drugs, and taught how to be sicarios. Survive that type of work for a few years and they start trusting you with running a small crew, etc, etc. The core problem is that Mexico has an ample supply of young boys who are growing up in extreme poverty with very limited options for a good life. It's easy for them to look on social media and see cartel members flashing cash, driving nice cars/trucks, and getting girls so young impressionable boys do what they do.

Better education, better job opportunities and hope for a real future will cut the supply of boys into the bottom end of the network and massively reduce their power. Take away the supply of sicarios and the violence would reduce significantly.
 
MindzEye said:
Yeah, I expect some adventurism. I think there's a few blindspots on the US side of things though:

1) Weapons & Training: They're not wrong that the cartels usually get folded in direct confrontation with the mexican military. But a bunch of that comes down to the Mexican military picking the terms of engagement each time (they've famously backed down a number of times, most notably during the Culiacanazo a few years ago). Because the escalation of the contact points between the two have been managed like this, the cartel hasn't invested in expanding their better trained, and better equipped forces...which probably are near peer to standard mexican infantry. If this became a broader persistent conflict, I'd expect the cartels to acquire better weapons including handheld anti air capabilities. US special forces would be pretty reliant on helicopters for transportation through a lot of Mexico, and those are very vulnerable to stingers and other hand held anti air missiles.

2) I touched on it yesterday, but the decentralized nature of the modern cartels makes this a really extensive intel operation. The most likely thing the cartels will do is stand down, put a temporary pause on operations and wait the Americans out. A few big dogs will still get captured/killed, but the networks will remain and when Trump proclaims victory after shit goes quiet for 6 weeks, the cartels will ramp up.

I mean, I wish their was an easy and fast way to beat the cartels. I move down to Mexico in just under 2 years now and it's the one significant concern point I have about the move. A Mexico without cartel violence sounds fucking wonderful, but I don't see it as plausible using those types of methods.
Click to expand...
This sounds like the US in Vietnam all over again. In a pitched, conventional battle they'd massacre the NVA or VC. But their enemies rarely gave them the option of fighting that way.
 
Nah. I don't see the US ever committing to large scale boots on the ground. It wouldn't even be the insurgency action of Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be Special Forces probably with private contractors for support, doing raid style attacks with the occasional raid getting ambushed or blowed up in a helicopter.
 
I think I can both criticize the NYT and still disagree with some of your specific criticisms

it's not an all or nothing scenario
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top