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

OT: American Politics

not really related to anything in particular, but I'm just gonna put down in writing now that I expect Trump to send troops into Mexico at some point in the next four years. would love, love, love to be wrong. but that is my prediction.
 
Wayward DP said:
not really related to anything in particular, but I'm just gonna put down in writing now that I expect Trump to send troops into Mexico at some point in the next four years. would love, love, love to be wrong. but that is my prediction.
Click to expand...

I could see SpecOps or drone sent in to assassinate cartel leaders for the headlines (Mexican cartels are by nature way more decentralized than most people think, eliminating the head of a cartel doesn't really do much...to this day people aren't sure if CJNG leader El Mencho is alive or dead and rumours of his death have been common for like 5 years now...CJNG keeps growing regardless). But boots on the ground I highly, highly doubt. Doing it somewhere in la frontera is pointless...it's a huge desert, there's nothing worth holding. Taking a border city? TJ, Mexicali....lol Juarez? Juarez or TJ would make holding Baghdad look like a vacay.
 
Ya, I don't know a whole lot about the situation in Mexico...but if the U.S. went in it would be under the flag of the cartels/drugs right? So they'd essentially be at war with both Mexico and the cartels. Two for the price of one.

Would be a lot easier to send troops into Canada.
 
I wanted to touch on that again as to how terrible an idea it would be. So, Afghanistan is a complete and utter whore of a country to take and hold as we've seen twice now in recent-ish history. It's all mountain and desert. I think people underestimate just how big Mexico is and how challenging it's topography is. Just Chihuahua and Cohuila, 2 of the border states combined, are almost as large as all of Aghanistan and it's all fucking mountain and desert.

desert_view_balleza_chihuahua_mexico_opt.jpg


8.1.2_HSP71_.G_.27.jpg


One of those is Chihuahua, one of those is Helmand Province...the heartland of the Afghani insurgency. Which is which?

The easiest and fastest way to get every cartel in the country to stop killing each other and start killing Americans would be to put boots on the ground inside Mexico. Would be a complete fucking nightmare.
 
 
Wayward DP said:
not really related to anything in particular, but I'm just gonna put down in writing now that I expect Trump to send troops into Mexico at some point in the next four years. would love, love, love to be wrong. but that is my prediction.
Click to expand...
Tricky,

Invading a sovereign country is an act of war. The military can also refuse to obey an illegal order.
 
FlyGuy said:

View: https://x.com/zerohedge/status/1861791074366177310?s=46&t=jO26Xs3gATFmVvs8KlHlPg
Click to expand...


Out of curiousity, how many times do I have to show you that zerohedge is full of shit before you stop getting influenced by the charts he creates to purposefully make the data sound bad/manipulated. His chart has no reason to start at 3% other than he wants to make movements in the data look worse than they are and abnormal.

1732730422892.png



It would be way, way easier for him to just copy and paste the real chart from the Fed:

Personal Saving Rate | FRED | St. Louis Fed

Graph and download economic data for Personal Saving Rate from Jan 1959 to Oct 2024 about savings, personal, rate, and USA.
fred.stlouisfed.org

1732730648419.png

After the weirdness that was the covid and covid recovery economy, savings rates are back in the same range they were after the recovery from the great recession. Data gets revised, the initial stuff is always just an estimate. This is normal.

How normal?


There was an upward revision to the savings rate during the Obama era....after he left office, encompassing a 7 year stretch of his administration. Was the deep state trying to fuck the data to make Obama look bad at the time or is it just an imperfect science that takes significant amount of study after the fact to get a good grasp on the true reality of? These revisions are always within a pretty normal range. It's never "oh, we were told the economy was booming and it's actually in a fucking depression", it's always "oh, this was off by a little bit in whichever direction".

The takeway here isn't that all of the data is fake and the deep state is trying to fool you. It's that it's the best data we have at the moment, which will get better later when it's studied better, and to not make any huge decisions based on a small amount of data points. Politicians of all stripes are always going to try to spin the data to look better for them, that's politics. As long as the gathering and reporting of the data is free of systemic bias (which by all appearances it looks to be. Data nerds argue around the fringes of what numbers are more important than these other numbers and which should carry what weight in whatever analysis, but nobody serious claims it's made up or otherwise fugazi), you take it for what it's worth and move on. When you're dealing with an economy as large as the US economy, small shifts in data can mean initial estimate errors in the 100's of billions of dollars.
 
There's a really grim irony to the entire idea.

Mexican cartels are so powerful because they spend a lot of the money they make selling drugs to willing American customers, using American mules and American criminal organizations for distro, on guns smuggled in the opposite direction which have allowed them to outgun local and state police forces. So the US military is going to be sent into Mexico to fight a US made problem and American soldiers will get killed by American made guns sold and smuggled into Mexico.

I don't think the US public has the stomache for it, especially when unlike other recent US conflicts that happened "over there" and before social media really became a thing, a fight in Mexico would be basically televised on social media with the bodies of soliders, cartel members, and innocent mexicans caught in the cross fire going viral on a daily basis.
 
MindzEye said:
There's a really grim irony to the entire idea.

Mexican cartels are so powerful because they spend a lot of the money they make selling drugs to willing American customers, using American mules and American criminal organizations for distro, on guns smuggled in the opposite direction which have allowed them to outgun local and state police forces. So the US military is going to be sent into Mexico to fight a US made problem and American soldiers will get killed by American made guns sold and smuggled into Mexico.

I don't think the US public has the stomache for it, especially when unlike other recent US conflicts that happened "over there" and before social media really became a thing, a fight in Mexico would be basically televised on social media with the bodies of soliders, cartel members, and innocent mexicans caught in the cross fire going viral on a daily basis.
Click to expand...
this is all true, but haven't we learned that trying to apply logic and reasoning to trumpbrain decisions is an effort in futility?
 
like, how do you expect trump to react to that strongly worded letter from a Mexican women? that's two groups he loves to hate in one package that had the audacity to speak back to him
 
Wayward DP said:
like, how do you expect trump to react to that strongly worded letter from a Mexican women? that's two groups he loves to hate in one package that had the audacity to speak back to him
Click to expand...

At heart he's a bully though and not an actual tough guy. He'll bitch and moan, make threats, even do some dumb economic shit that gets quietly rolled back later (or has a million and one exemptions in it) because corporate america has invested too much in their Mexican supply chain, and he'll settle for saying mean things and blow up a few cartel weddings with drones.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top