donald trump Trump: won't be the easiest president for Mexico.

Fear and loathing on the Trump train

His supporters don't care that he's a shameless fraud

It’s been a while, MND readers! No doubt some of you won’t be happy I’ve resurfaced, however briefly.

ADVERTISEMENT

Truth be told, I’ve been very busy writing a book about law and economic policy, a departure from my usual research interests of immigration, drug policy, and sometimes politics, which brings me to Trump (ugh).

I recently stopped smoking because I thought I might like to see my young children grow up. The tradeoff has been severe insomnia. I tend to sleep with the news on, and have dreams of hearing, “And today President-elect Donald Trump said that all . . . .”

Yes, I wake up in a cold sweat, reminiscent of my bout with dengue two years ago in Quintana Roo. And yes, I’m suffering from a severe case of Trump fatigue, and believe you me it’s worse than dengue, but I took a pill that is supposed to paralyze my gag reflex so I can get through this short piece without ruining my Toshiba with half-digested flautas.

As reported by Mexico News Daily and other news outlets, the Mexican peso recently plunged to record lows against the dollar, largely on the sickening revelation that Donald Trump is climbing in the polls against Clinton, and has a puncher’s chance at becoming president of the most powerful nation on Earth.

That’s right, a person with a megalomaniacal personality disorder, a charlatan, a serial liar and an all-round mendacious douchebag with a soul darker than that of Bernie Madoff or Jeffrey Skilling of Enron fame, may be commanding the U.S. armed forces, writing executive orders and nominating Supreme Court justices. (This tends to make financial markets a little nervous.)

(Don’t misunderstand. I don’t like Clinton either. But I have to go for the non-crazy person for a job this important.)

ADVERTISEMENT

I’ve written about Trump for Mexico News Daily before, and if you’re interested you can find those pieces here, here, and here. Wait, the pill isn’t working.

Okay, I’m back. Luckily there’s a trash can next to my desk.

Enrique Peña Nieto recently invited Trump to Mexico, and nobody really knows why. (When your neocortex is the size of a lentil you don’t really need to have a reason.) But I don’t want to talk about that head-scratcher. It’s another enigma that puzzled me until very recently.

On September 20 the Pew Research Center released yet another study showing in unassailable detail that the unauthorized Mexican immigrant population began declining after 2007 and has continued to shrink, putting it now at more than a million below its 2007 apogee.

(Meanwhile, unauthorized immigrants from other countries like China and India – mostly visa overstays – have risen dramatically.)

Being that illegal Mexican immigration has been, and remains, the tree upon which Trump has hung is bag of other bad ideas, this newest study must spell bad news for The Donald. Well, no. Not at all.

Having spent the better part of the last two days debating Trump supporters (a tiny minority of them turn out to be quite skilled in the art of sophistry), something occurred to me. The rules of logic, reason, let alone reliably established facts, have no purchase within the minds of Trumpistas.

They know he’s a carnival-barking, shameless fraud. They just don’t care.

Wait, it’s coming up again. Okay. Whew! I’ll have to clean that up before my wife gets home or she’ll think I’m drinking again. That pill – probably a placebo. But I’m almost done.

It’s seems unlikely that Trump has ever read a book cover-to-cover, but if he has, it must have been UCLA sociologist Barry Glassner’s The Culture of Fear. In it, Glassner explains how easy it is to sell fear – of Mexicans, of terrorists, of crime waves – despite the fact that we’re far more likely to be killed by lightning or bees.

Other studies in psychology have shown that we are predisposed to blame our self-made problems on others and that our very nature is tribal (an inherent fear of others that don’t look like us, talk like us, or have a different religion, among other things).

Another recent study in England indicates that people with conservative social views have consistently larger amygdalae – the area of the brain that processes fear. Given the endemic economic decline of America’s white middle class whose jeremiad is growing louder by the day, one can see why persuading Trump supporters to use their higher powers of reason is a lost cause.

Our very biology combined with general ignorance is a perfect storm descending upon Clinton’s rickety junk filled to the waterline with optimism and the overstuffed steamer trunks of her own personal baggage.

And although I’ll surely be watching next week’s presidential debate, I’m under no illusion that Trump’s inevitable gaffs will change any minds among his mostly undereducated and toothless hillbilly apparatchiks.

Am I being too pessimistic? I don’t know. He’s defrauded students at his fake university, he defrauded his charity by using its funds to buy a life-size portrait of himself, he’s in an active unrequited bromance with a Russian despot, he’s openly admired the ignorance of his own supporters, and he’s a not-so-subtle racist and bigot, and those are only the minor criticisms of his character.

Perhaps the only things that could derail the Trump train would be a WikiLeaks video of him molesting a child. But then again in my mind’s ear I can hear a chorus of supporters saying, “So what if he’s a pedophile, he’s really shaking things up!”

Fear and loathing. It’s what’s for dinner.

Glen Olives Thompson is a professor of North American Law at La Salle University in Chihuahua, a specialist in law and public policy and a frequent contributor to Mexico News Daily. Some of his other non-academic work can be viewed at glenolives.com

Stories from our archives that you might enjoy

  • Güerito

    Hey, Glen, glad to see you’re back and I hope you’re well. Try Valerian for those Trump-filled sleepless nights!

    I saw this new Pew Research piece when it came out a few days ago. But it appears to be recycling the same data we saw in their famous “Net Zero Mexican Migration” report they put out in Fall 2015. That report relied on data through mid-2014.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the data in the “new” report doesn’t include any post-2014 numbers.

    Many sources are now reporting an increase in Mexicans leaving Mexico. And in the number of native-born Mexicans living in the US. I’ve posted some of this earlier.

    The number of Mexicans apprehended at the border is now on the increase from the lows seen 2009-2014. The numbers started to turn around in 2015. Around the time the “Mexican Moment” faded and, among other things, it became clear the reforms in the Pacto Por Mexico were not delivering on the promises.

    And this just touches on Mexican immigration. There’s no dispute about the surge in illegal immigration coming from Central American, South America, Africa and Asia.

    And about the title of this piece – are you a H. Thompson fan?

  • Oh, Glen. Obviously, laying off the cigarettes has put you into quite an agitated state. Take lots of deep breaths, and repeat to yourself: President Trump, President Trump. Then, maybe, on Nov. 8, you will not have a heart attack.

    • stobs

      Again, another racist bigot supporting a racist bigot.

      • Stobs: That racist and bigotry routine is so tiresome. It’s decades old and has moss and mold growing in its crevices. Be original. Be clever. And most of all, be accurate.

        Can you do that?

        • stobs

          LOL. Chingala tu madre, puta.

          • Stobs: Your mother must be so proud of how you turned out.

    • #tacotruckoneverycorner

    • Glen Olives

      🙂

  • Jason Habacht

    Lucky for many of us…your opinion is of little interest..if I was back in Law School, I suppose that I might pretend that I agreed….but you are not of any value to me.

    • Happygirl

      Spoken like a lawyer.

    • stobs

      Lucky for many of us, you’re a completely moronic Trump supporter, so can be ignored.

    • Hillary was wrong when she said that half of Drumpf’s supporters are deplorable. It’s actually 60%.

  • Happygirl

    I am 110% in agreement with your article. People forget that politics IS serious business, it is not a game show, it is not entertainment and your vote really does count. Why would people vote for a man that has no political experience…and the position is not an entry level job…but President? They say they want change. Well, it’s like asking a plumber to do brain surgery. They say he’s not one of the establishment. He IS big business, he IS a member of the 1%…you know the guys you love to hate…politicians and big business go hand in hand. He doesn’t know you and he doesn’t care to. It would be better to be blindfolded and grab the first person off the street if you want change, a regular guy or vote for your neighbour’s cat. The qualities of the man are not in dispute, you said it all. With all the negative press you would think people would wake up…nope. Americans love to vote for the under-dog…they will get behind anybody or thing if they are told they can’t have. They believe that one day they’ll be as rich, that the winning ticket is one ticket away. They don’t want to think.

  • Güerito

    Hey, Glen. I continue to be surprised that you make such a big deal about a supposed decrease in the number of Mexicans heading north, when it’s undisputed that millions are still in the US illegally and hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants from all over the world are arriving through the southern border every year.

    Trump, like Hillary, is getting about 80% of his party’s support. But Trump is leading Hillary among independents and he’s getting more support from Democrats than Hillary is getting from Republicans. That’s an awful lot of “undereducated and toothless hillbilly apparatchiks”!

    • stobs

      Yes, Americans are stupid — it’s common knowledge outside of the country — and you are no exception.

    • Happygirl

      The United States of America has done a wonderful, a fantastic PR campaign of telling the world what a great country it is. Trump doesn’t have to make “America Great Again”. Through advertising, movies, the political world stage, we are told how great a country it is – “It’s the greatest country in the world”. America influences fashion, music, literature and the news. America IS great. So why are you surprised that people everywhere believe the words inscribed on the statue of Liberty “Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.” by Emma Lazarus.
      These were and are not the words of the first nations people…they would have preferred we stayed where we were. You should be happy America is not connected to Europe otherwise the USA would be facing an influx of refugees the likes it has never seen…good job.

      • alance

        My Swedish grandmother arrived in the United States as a young child in 1883, the year Emma Lazarus wrote her epic poem. The population of America was only 50,000,000 when she arrived. She died of TB in 1905, when my mother was a young child in Minnesota.

    • Glen Olives

      Hi Guerito. The Pew numbers seem solid and the metrics are good. Go figure. As for those still in the US, well, they’re here for a reason — we want them, although we wouldn’t like to admit it. Trump, though, is not talking about raping, drug-dealing Indians or Koreans or Chinese, or for that matter, Guatemalans. Curious, no? Is this man serious about public policy? Is this man serious about anything? The answer of course is no. Trump is serious only about Trump. You’re not an undereducated toothless hillbilly. You should know better.

    • Paxton

      There are a lot of smart republicans including the Bushes, who are going to vote for Clinton.

      • Güerito

        Those are the “few defecting RINOS” I talked about above. They certainly get a lot of press attention. Have you seen any media reports about Democrats who plan to vote for Trump? It’s about 10-15%. Many were Bernie supporters.

  • Three score and ten

    As a converted Trump supporter, I agree with everything you said except the part about Hillary being non-crazy. Many Trump supporters are people who prefer the devil they DON’T KNOW over the one they do know.

    • Paxton

      So you are saying Trump is supported by the devil. That I agree with.

  • alance

    Glen has a bad case of Trumphobia… an excessive fear of a Trump landslide in November. There is a light at the end of the tunnel and it’s the Trump Train. Nightmares can be damaging to a person’s health both mentally and physically and can lead to total exhaustion. Fear is indeed a terrible thing.

  • James Smith

    “a shameless fraud”, huh glen? well you shameless fraud you would certainly know of what you speak.

    • Glen Olives

      A brilliant objection, laden with facts, as usual.

      • James Smith

        facts are for those who make a pretense of posting facts. your defamation and slander is without any integrity and credibility and thus woefully not entitled to the respect of a substantive response…as always with the nonsense you post on this website. trump must be thinking of you and your crowd when he says “deport them all.”

  • Cool Hand Luke

    I went to read this article, saw the author and went no further except for the first line which I agree with.

  • Beau

    How can a rational, normal human being support a clown who incites political violence, is a serial liar, a rampant xenophobe, an angry racist and a well known misogynist– for President of the United States? Hillary is right, his supporters are the deplorable, angry and delusional crowd who blame others for their misfortune..

    • Michael Ahn

      Wish majority of voters is three digit IQ like you..

      • Beau

        Nice bra- dude!

    • From South of the Border

      Beau, it is very easy for a rational, normal person to pick Trump, because all the names you called him can all be looked at and questioned by any normal, rational person.. This is how leftist try to win arguements when they run out of steam. They yell racist and all the other names from their playbook except this time a lot of people have figured out this tactic and they have decided that they aren’t listening to this tripe any more so continue yelling at the top of your lungs until November 8th, but don’t be surprised, if you have yelled for nothing as Trump, becomes President.. Yje tactic is old and tired the dems. have been using that since the 80’s get a new playbook will ya, boring!!

      • Beau

        Aaaaw…poor baby from South of the Border…keep drinking your circus barker Kool-Aid- Trump is never going to be the Leader of the Free World. Ever. Can’t wait to see his ego destroyed at tomorrow’s debate and can’t get away blaming others for his own ignorance.—- America is already Great!!!!!.

        • From South of the Border

          Beau, You sound just like a person who bet me that Walter Mondale would beat Ronald Reagan in 1984 well that went perfectly for me a $100 plus meal for me…as usual a leftist can’t make an arguement they have to make fun of people and live on their own leftist KOOL AID…..I will only say arguing with you is useless history will tell the tale so lets see who is making the correct call. By the way America was Greater from 1981 to 1989…

  • From South of the Border

    This so called University Professor is one of the major reasons the world is in so much trouble and turmoil…These lefties make up this fantasy world where everything is gladness and light. Trump is giving the real story to the American people and they are listening, because they know from their own lives that THE DONALD is right about what is happening in America. The rest of the world is going to wake up on November 9th with a splitting headache and then their heads will explode after Jan 20th 2017 at Noon time when Trump takes the oath of office. It is going to be delightful to see and hear all the so called better educated smarter LEFTY LOONIES go crazy when the ordinary people with Common Sense out vote and ignore the LEFTIES..It is always funny how Common Sense always is a better way of making decisions than by LEFTY LOONEY theories from LEFTY LOONIE professors and their Ivory Tower theories..

    • Glen Olives

      You might be right and Trump might be elected. But be reminded that if you vote for him you’ll be voting against your own interests. You can’t of course seriously think cares about you. And of course neither does Clinton. The difference is in the details: one is batshit crazy and the other is not. Choose your poison. My view? Crazy is never a good option.

      • Michael Ahn

        Can’t choose crazy guy.

    • Michael Ahn

      Like we do the bar talk…

      • From South of the Border

        Michael, I’d take some of the wisdom heard in a Pub over the nonsense so many so called smart people spout out all over the place. Common Sense practical solutions are the way to go not all of this I’m smarter than you do as I say not as I do stuff coming from the so called smart lefties….

        • Michael Ahn

          NOT IN MY TOWN ENSENADA

          • From South of the Border

            Well, That might say more about Ensenada than common sense vs. lefty nonsense…

    • Beau

      The world is in so much trouble and turmoil since Bush invaded Iraq and created ISIS. Stop orgasming over Donald Duck already.

      • From South of the Border

        It wasn’t Bush who ordered the pull out of all our troops from Iraq which allowed ISIS to take so much territory as usual Lefties only remember what they want to remember!!

        • Beau

          That’s right!- It was President Obama to stop the carnage of young American soldiers at the hands of the Iraqis. A stupid war based on lies from another egomaniac Republican. Get a grip!

  • Russell Blake

    The problem is that in your dislike for the candidate, you have failed to grasp the essential appeal of Trump to his supporters, likely because you’re so busy demonizing and insulting anyone who doesn’t agree with your political views: Many Americans are fed up with a status quo of endless war, economic destruction, a lawless government that is a criminal enterprise supporting its elite cronies at the expense of the rest of the planet, etc. That’s what Clinton guarantees, and there is a substantial portion of the US that is tired of the elites that own the place sticking one of their puppets in the top slot so they can continue looting the population’s prosperity. Trump is a vote against that, even if an odious one. Just as the same elites couldn’t see Brexit coming, which was basically the same vote against the status quo, they are railing at and demonizing anyone who dares to risk a candidate/future that isn’t with one of their creatures. That you can’t grasp that is the sort of confirmation bias and delusion I’ve seen in many who fail to grasp the essence of the man’s popularity. Anyone who doesn’t want more war, less prosperity, more decline in standard of living, etc. is a nut or a hillbilly, and only you, and your self-involved cognoscenti friends, are wise enough to know what’s best for everyone. And yet you don’t get that even if Trump drank human baby blood for breakfast every morning, he’d still be a preferable choice to the alternative in the minds of many.

    You couldn’t be more wrong in your basic premise, although it’s a free country, and God knows plenty of self-appointed pundits are touting the status quo line that Trump is the devil and Clinton the only possible savior of mankind. But the tune rings hollow to many. If Trump prevails in November, it will be less a vote for xenophobia or stupidity, as a vote against a criminal government that actively works against the best interests of the planet. Whether that will have a good outcome or not is debatable. Voting for the face of corruption and mendacity isn’t.

    • Glen Olives

      I agree with your basic premise, and I get Trump’s appeal. And Clinton stinks. And Bernie Sanders would have been a much better choice, but he is no longer an option. The best option now is to therefore vote for Trump? As a protest against neoliberal economic policy, commit national suicide? I can’t follow that logic.

      • Russell Blake

        The logic is rather easy to grasp: Vote for someone who is as out of the professional liar/politician category as you can, and hope for the best. Given that Trump hasn’t got a legacy of warmongering and destroying other countries, or of being a career parasite and criminal, he starts to look good compared to the alternative, which the mainstream has defined as Clinton. I get that your strident rhetoric insists that Trump would be national suicide, just as those who counseled against Brexit declared it to be national suicide (noticing a commonality here?), but it wasn’t in fact any such thing – it was simply more panic/fear rhetoric designed to stop thinking and get people reacting. Reality is that the status quo choice is a vote for national suicide – constant war, economic chaos, no rule of law or prosecution for elite criminal bankers, politicians, and corporate bigwigs, a police state, neo-liberal NWO immigration policies, etc. So many are simply going to check the box for choice B, which may indeed be lousy, but can’t be any worse than what we have now, given that the nuclear annihilation clock is currently at 120 seconds to go till Armageddon – the worst in history, including the Cuban crisis – and that all financial indicators point to America entering a depression, even as the administration lies about every data point, just as it has about virtually everything. That is the stark reality of what the status quo has wrought, and Trump’s popularity is the predictable response.

        • From South of the Border

          Russell, Thanks for giving Mr. Professor lefty a cogent hard to reply to logical common sense reply. Your type of common sense rattles lefties, because they can’t fight common sense they can only babble on with their incoherent leftist trash talk. That is why Trump has a good chance to win and why Hillary might lose. People can only take so much then they say no more and a portion amount of the American people have finally reached that breaking point. Glen and other lefties think that they can keep the gravy train going, if they can only distract people long enough for Hillary to win…

        • Glen Olives

          Again, you lost me at step one — assuming against all available evidence that Trump in fact is not a serial liar and charlatan. And from there it goes downhill. Hope for the best? That’s your strategy? Every economist surveyed says his economic “plan” (I’m being generous) if implemented would be a disaster. Trump, the quintessential neoliberal dressed in the false raiment of a populist, wants to cut taxes for the rich, and the great unwashed worship him like a god. That’s irrational emotion at work, not reason. And I am at a complete loss as to how you think an unstable, erratic bag of orange skin would somehow be more responsible with the nuclear codes. As far as Brexit goes, it might be a tad too early to declare it a victory, seeing as how it has not been implemented. We might agree that two bad choices for POTUS are on offer, but in my view one is clearly worse than the other.

          • Russell Blake

            Yes, you’ve devoted thousands of hyperbolic words to how bad you think Trump would be – almost as though you had an agenda. You started off by insulting anyone stupid enough to disagree with your learned views, and then progressed to half-baked claims, as though your stridency somehow was a substitute for facts. Reality is that Clinton is responsible for the destruction of Libya, is surrounded with neo-cons, is an avowed war monger, and is a habitual and pathological liar – which is quite clear to virtually any thinking upright biped capable of being impartial. She’s run a pay-for-play scam with her foundation, and was criminally negligent with classified data (the woman claiming not to know what C meant on emails had herself sent thousands of emails and cables marked with a C, so even that lie assumes you’re a moron to buy it). And her health is a frigging nightmare of contradictory lies and failed propaganda claims that was revealed as such when she was dragged toes down on the asphalt to her waiting ambulance van (all candidates use those, right?). But you still believe this tragic example of failed humanity would be preferable to a windbag with bad hair who you dislike because you believe calling him “crazy” makes it so. I don’t know. I’d have to say that as bad as both are, and they are both bad, choosing the status quo candidate who is a guaranteed continuation of the failed and disastrous campaigns that have brought the U.S. to financial and diplomatic ruin is not in fact preferable to the unknown behind door number two. That you can’t see that a lot of people believe the devil they know to be so objectionable virtually anyone else would be preferable speaks to a considerable bias on you behalf. There is none so blind as he who benefits by being unable to see.

          • Glen Olives

            Quite a rant, and a good one, in my view. But you’re wrong to assume that I have an agenda, or am a liberal ideologue. I reject ideology and its big brother dogma. I’m not a politician. I have no dog in the hunt. My lifestyle will not be affected no matter who is elected. I am, if nothing else, a pragmatist. I confess to not being a diplomat, and you’re right to assume that I haven’t convinced anyone to change their positions on Trump.

            Having said that, let’s be crystal clear about something that we obviously agree on: this contest is not about choosing the best candidate for the job, it’s about choosing the least worst candidate for the job. I think the least worst candidate is Clinton, you think the least worst candidate is Trump. Fine. (A third party candidate is so ridiculous as a viable alternative that it doesn’t even warrant discussion.)

            It should give anyone pause that very few people are talking about actual policy positions, but rather about the health of Hillary Clinton, as you so easily do, or other ridiculous conspiracy theories where nutjobs confuse correlation with causation, or how unfair I’ve been to a demonstrably psychotic demagogue.

            Bottom line — Trump isn’t qualified to be an unpaid congressional page let alone the President. Clinton is predictable, as can be seen by her move toward the progressive left to capture Sanders supporters. Trump is a loose cannon.

            As to Brexit, I’m glad you are able to see into the future. I don’t have that superpower. But I do have the ability to conflate history with economics and demography. On those grounds, it doesn’t look like a good outcome for anyone.

            Lastly, is Trump crazy because I say so? Of course not. One need only listen to the words (where intelligible) that come from his mouth. He thinks his daughter is sexy and would date her if he weren’t her father. He openly demeans women and the disabled. His understanding of public policy is on par with my nine year old daughter’s. His solutions or unworkable, impracticable or outright unconstitutional. We would be better off to randomly select a non-mentally ill person off the street with an average IQ to be president and surround them with expert advisers.

            A vote for Trump is a vote for chaos. It is a vote against everything civilization has achieved for the last thousand years. It is a “fuck you” vote against a neoliberal establishment on both the Right and the Left (this must include both Obama and Clinton). But it is stupid nonetheless.

            Just so there’s no confusion, let me say it plainly — Trump supporters are as dumb is dirt, and more often than not intentionally so. Vote for the emotionally satisfying but rationally ridiculous if you must. Should Trump win, I suspect that the snake oil that you bought and drank might leave a very bad taste in your mouth.

          • Russell Blake

            Why is a third party candidate and his or her qualifications too ridiculous to discuss? Because you’ve been indoctrinated into believing that? That is the only reason I can think of – the official status quo narrative is that it’s ridiculous and throwing your vote away, mainly because third party candidates like Ron Paul, as an example, tend to not be bought and paid for by the establishment. I suspect your belief comes from the narrative that says one “can’t win,” just as Jesse Ventura’s dem and republican opponents insisted in that election – where he won.

            Your repetition of your basic premise, that anyone who supports Trump is either an idiot or crazy, does you no good service, in that you offer no support for that opinion. It’s akin to the same sort of zealotry that one might expect from someone convinced that anyone who doesn’t believe in their version of a deity must be an idiot or crazy – an opinion based on bias and mistaking personal belief with supportable fact.

            Trump has made numerous inflammatory statements whose main goals that I can see are to polarize, get attention, and pander to fringe elements. He has succeeded in all of those objectives, so if he’s crazy, he’s crazy like a fox. I despise the man, but I don’t allow my dislike of him to color my case for or against him, or to denigrate anyone who disagrees with my bias as unbalanced or moronic.

            Resorting to the tired “conspiracy theory” argument over legitimate concerns over Hilary’s health stopped holding water when she was dragged toes down, stiff as a plank, into a waiting ambulance van on 9-11. That was the status quo official narrative – that to question her health in spite of the myriad concerning falls, clots, fractures, etc. was conspiracy theory. Most people don’t know that demonizing rational skepticism by labeling it conspiracy theory was put into practice by the CIA following the backlash over the Warren Commission’s flight of fancy. In other words, it was psy ops. You are using a psy ops tactic without even knowing you’re doing it. That doesn’t lend gravitas to your position, merely demonstrates an alarming lack of originality or death of facts with which to counter rational inquiry.

            At the end of the day, a vote for Trump, since you believe only the two mainstream candidates, one a sociopathic lying crook so dim she doesn’t understand what C means even though she used it herself thousands of times, who has gone toes to asphalt only a few days ago in plain view of the country, and a lying huckster who has successfully bested on a shoestring her centi-million dollar media campaign with the full support of the entire administration and mainstream media, is a vote against everything she stands for – a pervasive corruption that would make a Moroccan rug merchant blush. You still can’t seem to grasp that a significant portion of the population have had an ass full of what they’ve been served up for years: constant war with an escalation to WW3 by the neocons that run both parties, the draining of the nation’s prosperity by a coterie of elite bankers, a police state where the law is used to oppress the powerless rather than protect them, and is unevenly and selectively applied so elites and their creatures are above the same law used to crush the rank and file.

            Mexico will be just fine with either one of these gasbags president. Not so much of Hilary continues the neocon march to a war with Russia and China and Iran and Syria it cannot afford to wage, much less win. Russia loses its patience and believes it will be attacked, and the US is one EMP burst from the stone age, and I commend the Russians for the patience in the face of astounding hubris and unbridled aggression. But nobody’s got infinite patience, and Hilary represents a continuation of the policies that have NATO on Russia’s borders, that have resulted in the complete destabilization of most of the Middle East and a massive immigrant crisis wholly of the U.S.’ making (thank you for Libya, Hil, and thank you GW Bush for Iraq and Afghanistan, and thank you Obama for Ukraine, Syria, Honduras, Brazil, and all the rest). People don’t want that any longer. They’re tired of the American exceptionalism that Hilary personifies. It’s really just that simple: a substantial number of the people want anybody but her.

            It will be interesting to see how that plays out. Meanwhile, I will be watching with popcorn and tequila in hand.

          • Glen Olives

            Not bothering to discuss third party candidates has nothing to do with indoctrination and everything to do with basic math. Yes, I believe that Trump supporters are either conspiracy theorists like yourself (as you amply demonstrate above), or willfully ignorant, or just normal ignorant. Where’s my proof? Just go to a Trump rally. These people still believe Obama was born in Kenya, that he should have been in the White House on 9/11, he did nothing to stop the attack on Pearl Harbor, he’s a secret Muslim, and Trump will “make America great again” by executive fiat. What more proof does one need other than the words that come out of Trump supporters’ mouths?

          • Russell Blake

            Apparently you missed the basic math that saw Jesse Ventura elected, prevailing against both dems and republicans when allowed to debate. You can google it since it seems to have escaped your attention. So your belief, which is that advanced by the status quo that only the mainstream candidates can garner enough votes to be elected, is provably false. Not that you seem to care whether your cherished notions are shown to be mistaken.

            Did you realize that use of the term conspiracy theorist was developed as a CIA psy ops technique in the 1960’s to chill rational skepticism around the Warren report? The idea was to give those with little intellectual horsepower a catch-all term with which they could smear, while making themselves feel smugly superior without actually knowing much. You can also google that. It’s now declassified.

            So you believe that roughly half of voters are ignorant, or conspiracy theorists. That’s fine. You are also free to believe that an alien overlord controls all human behavior, or that we are all remnants of a dream, or that you have been imbued with some laser-like intellect that grasps in a sound bite a nuanced group of somewhere in the neighborhood of a hundred million or more of your countrymen. I tend to read tracts like yours and come to the belief that the ability to substitute vitriol for substance, and to delude oneself about one’s grasp of issues while simultaneously showing oneself to be badly underestimating everyone who doesn’t concur with your narrative, to be a defining characteristic of those who support the worst secretary of state the nation’s seen during my lifetime (the Libya debacle, the classified material on a private server, the ludicrous claim that a woman who had marked thousands of cables with a C was either too stupid to know what it meant when questioned, or too mentally incompetent to recall, the emerging pay-for-play scam that is the Clinton foundation, her campaign’s constant and changing lies about her health, and on and on) and certainly one of the most odious candidates for any high office I can recall, and that says much.

            The problem with debating someone who honestly believes they know it all about a topic is that belief, like someone hallucinating who believes themselves capable of flight, won’t change regardless of what data is provided. Never allow facts or data to change a beloved, if false, belief. Your generalizations that most, or all, of Trump’s supporters believe absurdities strikes me as either deliberately and willfully ignorant, or insulting for effect. Both are fine, but let’s be clear that there are literally a hundred legitimate criticisms you could level at Trump or Clinton, but instead of those, you’ve chosen gutter ball, which again, is fine. Just don’t pretend to elevated discourse when your position can be summarized as “all Trump supporters are idiots or loons.” The deplorables don’t seem to care what the academics who are wholly out of touch with reality think about them, so you’re not changing any minds if that’s your target, and those who believe Clinton, the toes dragging on the asphalt, crazy-eyed liar or fool (depending on which version of her C explanation you believe) is the best possible choice this go around, already drank the Kool-Aid and thus you’re wasting your breath howling into a self-referential void.

            It’s a free country, so you’re free to espouse whatever absurdities strike your fancy. At least this version of selective blindness and class bigotry is relatively harmless. God forbid you might find yourself in a forum where you could impact the thinking of more than a handful – then it might be destructive, or at least illuminating as to the depth of contempt some feel for those who differ from their narrow views.

            Good luck with your column. At least it’s reasonably well written. Everyone’s a critic.

          • Glen Olives

            Conspiracy theories are like hunches — they tend to be wrong. I’ve been to two Trump rallies in my home state of California. I’m familiar with the history of conspiracy theories. Two of my favorites are Trumps — Obama was born in Kenya and climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese (he’s never deleted this from his Twitter feed so I’m assuming he still believes it). I’d be happy to discuss political theory, economic theory or even evolutionary theory, but I won’t go down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theory. Are half the people ignorant conspiracy theorists? I would say closer to 40%, but yes.

            As for third party candidates, we’re talking about a national election, not the governorship of a backwards rural state. No third party candidate has ever won a presidential election, and given Stein’s and Johnson’s polling numbers, it seems unlikely that one ever will in the foreseeable future. That’s a simple objective statement of the facts, a sketch of the battlefield the way it is, not they way I wish it to be. As to who is the worse candidate, I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree.

          • Russell Blake

            I’m afraid that you conflate rational skepticism with conspiracy theory. As an example, it was labeled conspiracy theory to question Hilary’s health as late as Sept.9th. On Sept 11th she collapsed and was dragged toes down on the asphalt to her ambulance van, at which point conspiracy theory ceased to be such, and became legitimate rational skepticism.

            I could cite dozens of purported conspiracy theories that later became established fact, all the while as the status quo insisted they were lunacy till the last possible second. It is a standard smear tactic. Gulf of Tonkin. WMDs in Iraq. CIA running illegal domestic ops. US medical experimentation on its citizens without consent. The Federal Reserve being a privately-owned corporation. And on and on.

            Now, of course that doesn’t mean all, or even most, conspiracy theories are accurate. Conversely, labeling rational skepticism conspiracy theory doesn’t make the skepticism misplaced, especially with respect to a government and media that has lied more times than a Hanoi hooker. The wonder to me is that anyone believes any official claim without a healthy dose of skepticism, which just shows the gullibility of the American people, as well as normalization bias.

            Having attended two Trump rallies, you undoubtedly saw many types of people – a subset of his supporters active enough to be willing to attend a rally. That’s a sliver of the population, just as the democrat attendees of rallies are a narrow subset of the most vociferous democrats. Assuming you spoke with all attendees at the two rallies, you could, at best, make statements about the California attendees of Trump rallies, nothing more. If you didn’t speak with all attendees, you could at best make statements about those you observed and interacted with, not all in attendance.

            Where it becomes hyperbolic is when you take a narrow subset and then color an entire group with the negatives you might have observed. That is how racism, sexism, xenophobia, in fact many of the things you accuse Trump supporters of, works. You extrapolate observations about a subset to the whole. Surely you grasp that. If not, perhaps a brief reminder of the rules of logic might be in order. Specifically straw man, and ad hominem arguments.

            I know a few Trump supporters, with whom I disagree vociferously about his qualifications to be dog catcher, much less president. Exactly none of them believe the Kenyan birther theory advanced by Clinton’s team in the 2008 elections (you can search Sidney Blumenthal’s communications with Hilary for written proof of her team advancing that story as a lowball tactic in the 2008 campaign). Were dim republicans also taken in by it, and further propagated it? No doubt. But the origins of the story are not just, or even mostly, Trump supporters, much as Hilary supporters would like to rewrite history. Did Trump fall for it? Clearly he did. That makes him gullible. No contest on that. Do many Hilary supporters buy she’s either too stupid to know what C on emails means, or alternatively, too mentally deficient to recall? Sure. Obviously. Does that mean they all are? Nope. At best it proves that the average IQ in the US is 98, and that Hilary’s strongest supporters in racially mixed and female communities are willing to buy a particular brand of bullshit if it advances their candidate’s agenda, just as Trump’s 98 IQ supporters will buy his brand of bullshit if it advances their candidate’s agenda. That is all it proves, if even that.

            I’m rather surprised that an academic capable of rational thought would so easily fall prey to the generalization trap based on, at best, incomplete information, but then again, one’s vocation or education is no guarantee that one applies rational skepticism where it would do good. Many Jews in Germany with degrees stayed even when it became clear Hitler intended to persecute them. Many Americans believed Sadaam has WMDs capable of being an existential threat to the US in 45 minutes. Many Americans also believe all manner of silliness – that the US has great healthcare even though medical mistakes are the #3 killer in the country, the the US president innately has the right to murder with drones people who have received no due process and speculatively at some point in the future might become a threat, that America is a first world paradise even though its infrastructure is D rated and slipping to F and you can’t drink the water in hundreds of communities, that the rule of law applies even though special elite interests and politicians are above the law (consider zero bankers being prosecuted for fraud from the 2008 financial crisis), that Libya wasn’t about stealing Quaddafi’s gold and installing a privately owned central bank while ensuring the dollar remained the trading currency for its oil, etc. There is no end to the BS supposedly bright people will believe, or will describe as conspiracy theories even though they are documented fact. The madness of crowds is not exclusive to any political party, as you should well known, if being truly being balanced.

            No part of your hatchet job, nor subsequent responses to comments, strike me as balanced, so I can only assume being unbalanced is the goal. If so, you’ve exceeded your wildest expectations, and are to be congratulated.

          • Glen Olives

            You’re quite right that I have made no attempt to be balanced. Nor have I obviously made any attempt to save hurt feelings or be diplomatic to persuade others that I am right. When people say that the Earth is flat, I feel no obligation to be balanced, to say that they have a point or an interesting view about objective reality. Same goes for people who think that Obama is a secret Muslim or that man made climate change is a hoax.

            I’m glad you brought up rational skepticism vs. conspiracy theory. I have not conflated them as you claim. Here’s why.

            Take me, a rational skeptic and an atheist. I don’t believe that gods exist for the simple reason that there is no good evidence for the existence of one. We could quibble about what constitutes good evidence of course, but that’s where I stop. I remain open to the existence of gods if presented with evidence, which I think is the position of most atheists. I do not then proclaim that gods do not exist based upon a theory that the government or other entity, real or imagined, is trying to manipulate me into not believing in gods for X reason, because some dark cabal of secret power brokers want me to believe X because it suits their purposes for achieving Y. This is exactly what the Jesse Venturas of the world do — in their desperation to make simple sense of a complicated world, and being dumb and impatient, and no doubt suffering from other cognitive biases, they mistake correlation with causation, and concoct outlandish theories for which no credible evidence exists. (This is your basic Trump supporter, but I’ll get back to that in a second.)

            Now take a look at the belief of a typical conspiracy theorist, using a Trumpish example. Almost seventy percent (!) of Trump supporters think Obama is a secret Muslim. After all, his father was Muslim and he briefly attended school in a Muslim country, and many brown-skinned people are Muslim, and he sometime’s doesn’t wear a wedding ring. Yet he professes to be a Christian, and does some very non-Muslim things like drink alcohol and eat pork. Some of his behavior correlates with typical Muslim behavior, but most of it does not. It is possible that he really is a secret Muslim of course, and that can’t be automatically discounted because we can’t read his mind. But it would require a vast conspiracy of accomplices to hide this secret from the public (let alone the abandonment of his religious convictions in order to fool everyone.) I wonder what William of Ockham would think of this theory? I suspect very little. Indeed, looking at the available facts he would remain reasonably skeptical that Obama is a secret Muslim because the much more plausible and simpler explanation is that he is a Christian. Same goes for Clinton’s health — she could be hiding a horrible disease, or she could just be an old lady who share’s our biology, sometimes getting sick, and knowing enough to want to avoid bad political optics (not unlike Trump blaming his sniffles during the debate on the microphone).

            This is the difference between conspiracy theory and rational skepticism, in a much-abbreviated nutshell.

            Yet you note that some conspiracy theories have graduated into the realm of truth. Of course they have. In the not-too-distant past, one would put to the rack if publicly proclaiming that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Or be blacklisted for claiming that free market capitalism is a failed dogma for most of humanity, but great for the wealthiest 1%, among many other things too.What’s the difference? Evidence, of course. In my above example about Obama, even if he didn’t eat pork and didn’t drink alcohol and never wore a wedding ring, the conspiracy theory surrounding his religious convictions would be not one iota stronger, because of lack of evidence to the contrary.

            But it’s actually worse than that. David Hume said that we’re basically just big bags of watery irrationality, passing off our biases, traditions, customs and many other things as being products of our rational minds when they are anything but. Kant seized upon this idea, and proposed that reality conforms to our observation of it (most people still can’t get their minds wrapped around that). The disciplines of evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, and physics have proved him right. Karl Popper went even further on Kant’s ideas (helped along by Shopenhuaer), and made the bold claim that within scientific theory, we can’t even prove causation through observation — the best we can do is falsify scientific theories, never prove them. (Einstein in turn proved him right with relativity theory, a testament to the awesome powers of the human mind.) And yet the scientific method has proven to be extraordinarily useful at almost every level of the human experience.

            In sum, conspiracy theories are not worth expending any intellectual energy in absence of not only credible evidence to support them, but also a method to test their veracity. (Obviously I would never consider innuendo, unverifiable rumor, speculation or urban legend as evidence as so many so facilely do). We know quite a lot (never enough) about sociology and political theory and a whole host of other things within the social sciences to solve our problems without resorting to silliness.

            Which brings me back to Trump supporters. You seem to assume that I’m painting with a too-broad brush when it comes to Trump supporters, based on my own anecdotal experiences. If I’m guilty of conflating anything, it is conflating by my personal experience with the polling data on their beliefs. A very sizable majority believe that Obama is a Muslim born in another country, and significant minorities believe that man-made climate change is a hoax, and that Antonin Scalia was murdered. This list of absurd belief goes on and on…and on. And I’ve never met a Trump supporter who didn’t believe at least one of them.

            Many Trump supporters are vile racists. Others are very nice people, my father being among them. But the vast majority share a commonality — they are hopelessly ignorant. This may seem like an insult, and one may take it as one wishes, but it seems to me to be a perfectly defensible statement of fact.

            Of course we live in a largely rapacious society that worships ignorance and superficiality, so I wouldn’t necessarily object to the idea that it is I who am on the wrong side of history.

          • Russell Blake

            Have you been to many Trump rallies? Or would the number be zero, as I suspect, and you’re relying on carefully selected partisan vids where the dimmest and the craziest are filmed to support a narrative, and you believe that watching those vids for a few minutes fully informs you of what all Trump supporters are like? Call it a hunch, but my bet is you’ve never been to one.

            Which isn’t to say they might not all be crazy. What it highlights is that you’re likely working off biased spin substituted for actual knowledge.

      • Michael Ahn

        We need non crazy person for the job.

        I can’t approve the guy who denounces the closest ally, Mexico where we are living.

    • Toni Roberts

      That was an excellent explanation. Given that we are doomed with either candidate, any suggestions on where we go from here?

      • Russell Blake

        That’s a tough one. I don’t dispute Trump is terrible. I can’t bring myself to want to vote for either. I’d prefer voting for a bag of rocks, frankly, than either one. Perhaps Gary Johnson, the libertarian candidate, is the best choice. But you’ll note that mainstream media has worked long and hard to inculcate the folksy wisdom that a vote for anything but the two dominant parties is “throwing your vote away” – primarily because it doesn’t want to have to spend the money on buying off the third party, too. So I’d probably vote for Johnson, simply because he’s neither Clinton nor Trump. Then again, if he was a plank with a face painted on it, I’d counsel the same. I’ve lived in Mexico for 15 years, so the only reason I care at all is that no place is far enough south to escape nuclear winter.

    • Michael Ahn

      I think Trump can derail the nation.

  • Yolanda Rojas Dugas

    I guess to you a criminal is better than a rude New Yorker. He’s just acting like your ordinary New Yorker… all mouth… but when it comes to business… he’s all business…and gets it done!

    • Glen Olives

      Check the numbers. Has Trump invested his inherited fortune in the S&P 500 and went into a coma, he would be richer today. All business? No. All mouth. As Freud famously said, facts are not something that we must necessarily find agreeable.

    • Paxton

      Study his businesses. 6 bankruptcies, hundreds of little subcontractors left hanging for their final payments.To quote Trump, “I have paid them enough”, no mater what the contract. You have to sue Trump to get paid. He illegally uses money from his foundation to buy things. He is not a good business man and is lying about his wealth.

      • Michael Ahn

        Fraud is his middle name.
        Trash Fraud Trump?

      • From South of the Border

        You study most businesses you will find many, if not all of them use similar tactics standard procedure!! Maybe, if you had studied Adam Smith instead of Marx you’d know that or just use your common sense!! No you wouldn’t do that, because then you’d actually be thinking not just using pure leftist ideology!!

    • From South of the Border

      Thanks Yolanda a voice of reason and common sense!! These lefties don’t understand business and capitalism, because they love places like Venezuela where Socialism has really worked well?? NOT!!

    • “Criminal”? What crime has she been convicted of?

  • Paxton

    The best part of this is that Trump is not going to win the election.

    • Michael Ahn

      Got to make sure . Vote.

      • From South of the Border

        Yes, Vote and make sure common sense not leftist(Hillary) ideology wins!! Capitalism and common sense vs. leftist promises (Hope and Change) ( Change and Hope)( Obama) How did that work out for everyone?? Not!!

        • Michael Ahn

          Our lefty’ s OK.

    • From South of the Border

      Paxton, Are you sure about that?? As I have said many times Never say Never!!!

    • Michael Ahn

      I love that.

  • Michael Ahn

    He is unqualified to run the U.S.
    But he can run Russia with Putin.

    • From South of the Border

      Who says so??

    • Nah, Drumpf will just shine Putin’s shoes. He won’t have any role in actually running the country.

  • Econo facts

    It is unfortunate that America is left only with the choice of a clown in Trump or a bonifide criminal in Clinton. I guess my biggest concern about Clinton is her stealthy embracing of Sharia Law which completely oppresses women and any minority that does not agree with Islam. (Read the Democratic platform) I am pretty sure Clinton has no idea what Sharia really is. It is what kills tens of thousands of people each month. If you have friends who are women and minorities it is impossible to vote for something like this that will certainly harm them.

    Glenn, you need to look at the outlook for the Peso from about one year ago. Economists, not affected by politics, predicted the Peso would be about where it is now in that forecast. The movement of the Peso really doesn’t have much to do with American politics, but if you insist, what you are really saying is the dollar is strengthening against the Peso due to Trumps potential of winning the election. A lot of undecided voters in this election may like that Idea.

    • From South of the Border

      Brilliant analysis..Once again a voice of reason and common sense not leftist rhetoric!!

    • “embracing of Sharia Law”? Would you like another hit of acid?

    • Glen Olives

      Two bad choices to be sure. But Clinton does not, and never has, supported Sharia. What web site did you get that from? Breitbart? Glenn Beck? I worry when myth so easily becomes fact. As far as the peso goes, it is indeed affected by politics, as was the downgrading of the US credit rating upon Trump’s viable candidacy. To what extent is the peso’s decline due to politics and what extent to purely economic factors such as record low oil prices? Nobody can say. What can be said, though, is that it is a double-edged sword. US manufacturers moving plants to Mexico, for example, love it.

      • Richard Barnett

        Glen,

        You are right about the two bad choices for the United States and for Mexico. I would never wish trouble on the Mexican people and think Trump will be unable to circumvent NAFTA, BUILD HIS WALL, or make Mexico pay. You seem to be suffering from Trump fear just as many are suffering from Hilary fear. When the United States economy improves so does the economy of Mexico. Trump will be better for our economies. Hilary will be worse for our economies. Trump’s rectoric is just that and need not be feared.

        • Glen Olives

          I’m not saying, and I have never said, that fear by itself is irrational. There are plenty of things to be legitimately afraid of. Wealth inequality is one. Racism is another. And Trump is yet another. I’ll allow for rhetoric to be sure, but there comes a point when rhetoric gets blurred with substance, and Trump has crossed that line too many times.

  • Walter Ehresman

    He is indeed a vile hairpiece. I wrote an anti-Trump reggae song, with all download proceeds going to Feed the Hungry here in San Miguel: https://walterehresman.bandcamp.com/album/anti-trump-charity-singles

  • Econo facts

    No, Glenn. Sources are the people themselves. The Sharia Law come from Clinton herself. She has made it clear she would consider allowing Sharia to govern Muslims communities. Several prominent Imans have applauded her for this and given her their support. These are her words, no one else’s. There is no real viable news outlet left in America. They all appear to have sold out to some organization that has an agenda.

    As for the Peso. What you are reporting comes from some pretty non credible sources putting this out to the pathetic news organizations and Internet sites, all too willing to gobble up such nonsense. Read the annual forecasts on the Peso from the World Monetary Fund, the World Bank, several international banks and one will see the Peso is about where it was predicted to be at this time. If anything, it would be the monetary policy of the US over the past several years that would have affect on the Peso. The Peso improves when oil prices increase, Mexico reduces their trade deficit debt and invests in infrastructure as well as uniform commercial policies that have a positive effect on commerce. By the way, the recent event of the teachers strike that disrupted much of the commerce in the south of Mexico did not help matters much either.

    My “agenda” is to get facts out for people to read and make their own decisions from. There is no political agenda so things are not politicized. The collective real concern should be how in the world did the American people allow such a great Country to come to this situation where these two people are the choice for President!

    • Glen Olives

      If Clinton supports Sharia law, please provide a source.

      • Econo facts

        Suggest reading her platform. You will also have to look up some sites associated with different Muslim Associations.

        • Geoffrey Rogg

          The authorisation for Religious courts to determine certain types of civil disputes is well established internationally in many democracies subject to their not contravening the laws of the land. Since all parties have to agree to the judgement of the religious court before hand there is adequate protection of civil rights. This is a non-issue as both Jewish Law and Shariah Law are well established options for followers of both faiths.

          • Econo facts

            A very good point and well explained. The concern I offer though is the rhetoric being put forth from Clinton and several Democrats through items like HR 569, statements and conversation that would appear to take away the consensus by all parties part of this forcing a Shariah court upon a person who may not agree with same. The rhetoric is also appearing to make it illegal for one to disagree with Islam itself. Both are strong tenants found in Shariah Law. I encourage people to read the Koran and Shariah Law for themselves. Be careful to find writings of it before 1990 or you run the risk of a propagandinized version. No one has the right to take away anyone’s ability to disagree with any form of religion in America. Again, your explanation of this issue is excellent and very accurate.

    • Geoffrey Rogg

      What is also amazing Glenn is how many people are so incensed about Trump who know nothing about him except for what they have witnessed in the debates and from highly subjective and biased opinions published in the professional and social media. He most certainly is not a polished politician from the social elite who consider themselves endowed with the divine right of Kings to govern and rule. Whether you sympathise with them of not there are a majority of disaffected common folk with whom there is now a total disconnect between the establishment and their rightful expectations. The more pandering to minority interests the greater the disaffection of the majority of hard working Americans and entrepreneurs who by grit and courage seek to improve their families and communities quality of life which they have seen diminished in real terms, largely due to influence exerted by special interest groups. In other words this very large section of the population felt no-one was routing for them except the only anti-establishment mavericks to speak for them being Bernie Sanders, who I know quite well being a Lamoille County Vermonter, and Donald Trump who I knew as an extremely gifted and wily negotiator in my earlier capacity as an economic development consultant in Westchester county, New York. Unfortunately, Bernie caved in to the establishment and, for me at least, lost therewith all credibility but Donald stood his ground and succeeded to achieve the unimaginable, the Republican nomination. Rightly or wrongly Donal Trump is seen to represent the “common man” for whom there is absolutely no other alternative. If he wins and does well for the country, so much the better for all Americans, if he wins but messes up, Washington has only itself to blame for forgetting who they represent. As for Hillary, I admire her fortitude but for whom I have no positive vibes and having closely followed her political career during and since Bill Clinton’s presidency I can only say she does not impress me in the least, having failed the test of responsibility completely. Whichever way the vote goes will be the proof of the pudding and may God bless the Republic for which we stand.

  • DLGMEX

    I regret my Mexico News agreed to publish your Bullshit… I don’t read for personal opinion, rather summary of facts few of which you seem to have at hand

    • Glen Olives

      If you don’t read opinion pieces, why do you feel the need to comment on what you have not read?

  • Glen Olives
    • Güerito

      As a starter guide for debate moderators who might want to avoid Candy Crowley’s 2012 epic and consequential mistake, here are some other prominent “facts” that (often cocooned) partisans believe are “true” but that are actually in some — often considerable – doubt:

      1. Mexico won’t pay for the wall, 2. Crime has not been increasing, 3. Illegal immigration from Mexico has stopped, 4. Obama deported record numbers of illegal immigrants, 5. Trump did not oppose the 2003 Iraq War.

      http://www.kausfiles.com/2016/09/26/no-new-crowleys/

  • alance

    This election is all about national sovereignty. Synonyms include autonomy, independence, self-government, self-rule, home rule, self-determination, and freedom, i.e. “the colony demanded full sovereignty.” This is about respecting the borders of other nations.

    The globalist corporatocracy desire a one world goverment to destroy national sovereignty and to eliminate national borders to enrich themselves. They believe it is okay to intervene and overthrow other governments that stand in their way for economic and “humanitarian” reasons. This is why they advocate open borders, stage coups d’état against other nations, send proxy armies to take sides in civil wars and design trade agreements to destroy national sovereignty.

  • Athea Marcos Amir

    I’m glad you’re back; I’ve missed your excellent writing. And stay on your no-smoking path for your child’s sake if not your own.

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT