If Donald Trump becomes President will there be another US Mexican war?

KingBrian2

With him topping the polls across the Nation in the Republican primaries he has a 50/50 chance of becoming President so with him as the new commander & chief and promises to keep of imposing a border on the Mexican front I can definitely see the Mexican gvt seeing this as a threat to their security. Now Trump might go down the international law route than fighting another costly war but so far I have seen nor heard nothing that would prevent President Trump from taking actions against a belligerent Mexico without causing severe economic and social ramifications.

The_Valeyard

Zero chance of that happening. If he wins the Republican nomination, you will see a more 'moderate' approach to win undecided and middle ground.

cowboyBuilder

Can't see him winning the final race though, I bet Hillary is delighted that she will be running against him, she will easily win.

But on the off chance he does win - can't imagine a war with Mexico either, most of the stuff this guy says is bs .. he's no way going to even attempt to build the wall or half the stuff he says, he will be impeached probably - going down as the worst US President in history.

But it's a mute point really, Hillary is the next US president.

BoJack Horseman

How do you think the Mexican offensive will go?

Will Canada & India solve their shared border crisis?

OP is like an Onion headline!

SantaClaw

There is zero chance for a war.

Mexico is sure not going to start a war with the biggest military in the world. They might be able to inflict some losses but in the end the outcome is simply. Mexico will be bombed back to the stone age and millions of people are dead. There is no scenario in which the Mexicans can hope to archive anything.

And the US is not going to start a war on their border where people can easily cross over and wreck havoc on american civilians. They had a hard enough time when there was only dead soldiers in Irak and Afghanistan. There is no way the majority of Americans is going to want to start a war and even more importantly support the occupation of a country as big in landmass and population as Mexico.

Sure both side might have there reasons to blame the other for there problems but they will never go to war.

KingBrian2

I'd say he would want to stamp out all illegal border crossings and stripping some Americans of the citizenship. He may also not want to have Mexico be facilitating American party goers traveling down to Mexican resorts and spending their time down there. Thus far Donald Trump has taken a very authoritarian approach to Mexico. Given this he would dissolve the NAFTA agreements and reopen discussions on US Mexican trade relations.

See this all playing out in Mexico will be hard to tell. A large Mexican opposition to the honour and respect of the Nation is being challenged by a US President has the potential to force the Mexican gvt to act. The Mexican President cannot be seen to let his countries reputation be ruined like this. He might consider boycotting American made goods and stop attending functions in America. We could see the Mexican and American positions get increasingly antagonistic.

oscarBravo

For all the talk from his supporters about him "telling it like it is" and being an "outsider", he's the archetypal politician: he's telling some of the people what they want to hear in order to get elected. Hell, some of his admirers claim that this dishonesty is what they like about him.

There is literally nothing whatsoever that he has said since the campaign began that has the faintest whiff of credibility. He's been a joke candidate, and he would be a joke president.

InTheTrees

KingBrian2 wrote: »

With him topping the polls across the Nation in the Republican primaries he has a 50/50 chance of becoming President

Just because trump wins the republican nomination doesn't mean he has a 50/50 chance of winning the Presidential Election.

The_Valeyard

InTheTrees wrote: »

Just because trump wins the republican nomination doesn't mean he has a 50/50 chance of winning the Presidential Election.

Normally I would agree. But this is the same voting populace who elected Bush jnr. Twice.

cowboyBuilder

oscarBravo wrote: »

For all the talk from his supporters about him "telling it like it is" and being an "outsider", he's the archetypal politician: he's telling some of the people what they want to hear in order to get elected. Hell, some of his admirers claim that this dishonesty is what they like about him.

There is literally nothing whatsoever that he has said since the campaign began that has the faintest whiff of credibility. He's been a joke candidate, and he would be a joke president.

Spot on, it's the soundbites people love, like John Oliver said : "Part of me likes this guy - but it's the part of me I hate"
So true.

RobertKK

oscarBravo wrote: »

For all the talk from his supporters about him "telling it like it is" and being an "outsider", he's the archetypal politician: he's telling some of the people what they want to hear in order to get elected. Hell, some of his admirers claim that this dishonesty is what they like about him.

There is literally nothing whatsoever that he has said since the campaign began that has the faintest whiff of credibility. He's been a joke candidate, and he would be a joke president.

Problem is Hillary Clinton is a bigger joke. She talks about her experience as if she did a good job in her previous roles.
She as the foreign Secretary of State for the US oversaw a massive disaster which she fully supported.
She supported the fall of Gaddafi, laughed about it. Now Libya is a terrorist haven.
She supported the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt who had links to terrorism.
She supported the anti secular forces against Assad.
We had the rise of ISIS under her watch, just like we had the rise of Al Qaeda under the watch of her husband.
she supported a coup in Honduras against a democratically elected leader.
She put confidential state emails onto her own private email server and which is now part of a criminal investigation.
The woman is the height of incompetence given her record for very poor judgement.

Clinton is so incompetent she is still fighting off Bernie Sanders while Trump has been declared the presumptive republican presidential candidate by the GOP.

Trump will win the presidency as Trump has a bookshelf of material to use against Hillary Clinton.
I am sure Trump will also bring out the woman who worked for Bill and who says she was raped by him, and how Hillary helped cover it up, for the reasons of power.
The amount of material to use against Hillary and Bill is immense.

War is far more likely under Clinton than Trump. She will not be at war with Mexico, neither will Trump, but she loves interfering in other countries and has been a strong supporter of war.

oscarBravo

RobertKK wrote: »

Problem is Hillary Clinton is a bigger joke.

[stuff]

I'm not a Hillary fan, but you're pointing out someone's flaws as a less-than-brilliant politician and claiming that that makes her a bigger joke than someone who is, politically speaking, a walking punchline.

This suggests to me that you're taking the description of a candidate as a "joke" as a vague insult, and deciding that you can just apply it to a different candidate that you dislike.

I'm not using it as a generic epithet: I'm serious that he's literally a walking joke. Clinton, like all politicians, has her failings. Trump, on the other hand, has no political qualifications other than a willingness to lie to get elected.

What would Trump do once elected? Nobody has a clue, probably including him. One thing is for certain, and that's that you can't predict any of his future actions based on what he says he's going to do, because even he doesn't mean anything he says.

He is - literally - a joke.

Clinton is so incompetent she is still fighting off Bernie Sanders while Trump has been declared the presumptive republican presidential candidate by the GOP.

And that's the difference between the DNC and GOP races: one has actual candidates in it, and the other has been a clown car race from day one.

War is far more likely under Clinton than Trump. She will not be at war with Mexico, neither will Trump, but she loves interfering in other countries and has been a strong supporter of war.

She's a hawk, no two ways about it. But you can't say that she's more likely to go to war than Trump, because neither you nor anyone else - including Trump - has clue one what he'd do as president.

SteveS

Trump is the "hope and change" of this election. I am. It saying he is the same as Obama, but rather that he has built a lot of support around ideas that aren't really substantive. Polling data is starting to show that he has a decent chance against Clinton, so I would say it is reasonable to put it at 50/50, at this point.

If he won, I could see him doing all sorts of dumb things, but going to war with Mexico is. It one of them.

RobertKK

Trump last night mentioned that the wars and interventions in the Middle East has cost the US $4 trillion, he says the US needs to be spending that money on infrastructure in the US rather than wasting it as has been happening.

Amerika

Mexico will do nothing AND will pay for the building of the border wall. Mexico would fall into disarray if the $24 billion per year in remittances the country receives from Mexican nationals working in the United States were to be cut off. As a matter of national security, Trump very well could get 31 CFR 130.121 redefined so that applicable financial institutions included money transfer companies like Western Union, and redefine "account" to include wire transfers. Icing on the cake would be to include in a proposed rule a requirement that no alien may wire money outside of the United States unless the alien first provides a document establishing his lawful presence in the US. I m sure Mexico will protest the wall, but will be happy writing the check to insure their de facto welfare for poor families continues.

Amerika

edit, double post. Hate the new boards.ie...

ancapailldorcha

Amerika wrote: »

edit, double post. Hate the new boards.ie...

You can delete posts within a certain time period (48 hours I think). Alternatively, just report a DP and we can deal with it.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

Mexico would fall into disarray if the $24 billion per year in remittances the country receives from Mexican nationals working in the United States were to be cut off.

So trump will ban foreign workers from taking money out of the country?

Or would it just be Mexicans?

This just gets better and better. I guess at this point he's completely written off the Hispanic vote.

KingBrian2

Donald Trump has become the GOP nominee so the Republicans will fall in line now. He has said a lot of bad things about Mexico if he is to take on Clinton he will have to present a realistic manifesto that will persuade his supporters, the GOP est and the Democrats.

As for Clinton she is a seasoned politician. A career politician in the manner of those in Westminster so yes I do see her starting a new war. Trump has said no more wars or meddling in foreign countries the only reason I mentioned the outbreak of war is that Mexicans and Americans might become aggrieved by Trump's speeches that are designed for a home crowd.

America is a flush we politicians as I said but what of diplomats that get US Mexican relations back to being as they were in the 90's. Like it or not America distrusts Mexicans and if Trump gets into office Mexico will be really annoyed at this and despite all the talk on here I believe this will create issues in the future.

Eugene Norman

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not a Hillary fan, but you're pointing out someone's flaws as a less-than-brilliant politician and claiming that that makes her a bigger joke than someone who is, politically speaking, a walking punchline.

This suggests to me that you're taking the description of a candidate as a "joke" as a vague insult, and deciding that you can just apply it to a different candidate that you dislike.

I'm not using it as a generic epithet: I'm serious that he's literally a walking joke. Clinton, like all politicians, has her failings. Trump, on the other hand, has no political qualifications other than a willingness to lie to get elected.

What would Trump do once elected? Nobody has a clue, probably including him. One thing is for certain, and that's that you can't predict any of his future actions based on what he says he's going to do, because even he doesn't mean anything he says.

He is - literally - a joke. And that's the difference between the DNC and GOP races: one has actual candidates in it, and the other has been a clown car race from day one. She's a hawk, no two ways about it. But you can't say that she's more likely to go to war than Trump, because neither you nor anyone else - including Trump - has clue one what he'd do as president.

I'm sure you could have made that argument at the start of the republican race. Cruz, we know what he wants.

It's down to tribalism for most votes but trump could win by moving to the centre if that's possible.

BoJack Horseman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I believe this will create issues in the future.

How do you see the Mexican invasion going?

Annex California & fortify the Sierra Nevada?
Or multi-pronged assault across the span of the border?

KingBrian2

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

How do you see the Mexican invasion going?

Annex California & fortify the Sierra Nevada?
Or multi-pronged assault across the span of the border?

Today's wars are not always fought with bombs and bullets. Economic war is what can be used against unsuspecting nations. The US temporarily ended sanctions on Iran and Cuba had a trade embargo placed on it long after the cold war was over. Even right now as we speak Russia is being sanctioned by Europe.

BoJack Horseman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Today's wars are not always fought with bombs and bullets.

No, wars are pretty old school.

But you didn't start a thread alluding to a trade-war.
You created a thread musing (bizarrely) of an actual war-war.
So, I'm wondering if you have pondered further?

What will Mexico consider 'casus belli'?
How will their war transpire?
Traditional or the new 'gray war' that is all the rage?

KingBrian2

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No, wars are pretty old school.

But you didn't start a thread alluding to a trade-war.
You created a thread musing (bizarrely) of an actual war-war.
So, I'm wondering if you have pondered further?

What will Mexico consider 'casus belli'?
How will their war transpire?
Traditional or the new 'gray war' that is all the rage?

We are to take Trump on all the comments he has made thus far about getting the Mexicans to pay for the wall. He can't do a U turn on all he has said. Mexican officials have already said they won't be paying for a border with the US. Keeping Mexicans from entering US territory illegal will be a source of conflict between the two sides. Already Arizona has taken a very harsh stance against Hispanics. Will Trump be prepared to deny citizenship and if needs be strip citizenship from illegal Mexicans. Hillary Clinton is seen by many state governors as supporting amnesty for Mexicans so this is a very difficult situation.

WarZ

America would get their asses handed to them in Mexico. They might win the initial invasion but as far as occupying goes? It doesn't even bare thinking about. Think Iraq but with four times the population, an abundance of high powered, quality weapons and already a large segment of the population adept at guerilla-esque warfare, not to mention a much better trained military that could join any such insurgency. How many Mexicans are in the US as well?

If Trump was actually that stupid it would spell disastrous times for America, not a hope that they hold Mexico. The casualties of invading a place like Juarez would make Fallujah look like Disneyworld.

InTheTrees

Dont forget that most of the south west, Arizona, nevada, new Mexico, Texas and California was part of Mexico up until...100-150(?) years ago. Americans of Hispanic descent don't necessarily feel the same animosity towards Mexico that other Americans do, and why should they?

BoJack Horseman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Mexican officials have already said they won't be paying for a border with the US.

I don't think Mexico will declare war over that non event....
But, its your fantasy so....

Keeping Mexicans from entering US territory illegal will be a source of conflict between the two sides.

Again... every country tries to prevent illegal immigration.
I'm not aware that trying to prevent illegal immigration has ever been followed by a declaration of war.
(We await Ireland's declaration on Australia for this, & hungary's with Serbia from 2015)....
But again... it's your fantasy!


If you think that mexico is going to declare war on the USA for simply not desiring an open border, then seriously Brian, this is ridiculous.

How many more 'trump = sky is falling in' threads will there be before November

KingBrian2

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I don't think Mexico will declare war over that non event....
But, its your fantasy so....


Again... every country tries to prevent illegal immigration.
I'm not aware that trying to prevent illegal immigration has ever been followed by a declaration of war.
(We await Ireland's declaration on Australia for this, & hungary's with Serbia from 2015)....
But again... it's your fantasy!


If you think that mexico is going to declare war on the USA for simply not desiring an open border, then seriously Brian, this is ridiculous.

How many more 'trump = sky is falling in' threads will there be before November

The Arabs declared war on Israel as a result of Illegal Immigration as they saw it. The US eventually declared war on Germany after the Jews fled from Nazi rule. Greece and Turkey had a war over population transfers and Turkish annexation of Cypriot territory.

BoJack Horseman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The Arabs declared war on Israel as a result of Illegal Immigration as they saw it.

Which war was caused by Israel preventing illegal immigration into its country?

(the rest aren't accurate either... but we'll start here)

And then we can get onto the obviously inevitable war between Serbia & Hungary because the Hungarians erected those fences!

RobertKK

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/former-mexican-president-vicente-fox-apologizes-to-donald-trump-a7015781.html

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox has apologized to Donald Trump for swearing at him earlier this year and has invited the presumptive Republican presidential nominee to visit Mexico.
Mr Fox said in a February interview, "I'm not going to pay for that f---ing wall,"

It seems peace is breaking out.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/728297587418247168

KingBrian2

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Which war was caused by Israel preventing illegal immigration into its country?

(the rest aren't accurate either... but we'll start here)

And then we can get onto the obviously inevitable war between Serbia & Hungary because the Hungarians erected those fences!

The Arab Israeli war of course. Caused directly by Jewish encroachment onto Palestinian lands and ending with the Independence of Israel.

Turkish invasion of Cyprus and est of a Turkish enclave what followed were attempts by the Greeks re occupy the Island.

US situation with regard to Mexican migrants living in their country is similar.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

Trump last night mentioned that the wars and interventions in the Middle East has cost the US $4 trillion, he says the US needs to be spending that money on infrastructure in the US rather than wasting it as has been happening.

And yet he supported both Iraq and Libya.

If I were Man Utd manager, I would have signed both N'golo Kante and Riyad Mahrez rather than let them go to Leicester, and would have also signed Harry Kane as a teenager, before he got so expensive. I also wouldn't have bought any of the players that have not worked out in recent years. As you can see, I am clearly the best candidate to be next manager of Man Utd.

thebeerbaron

KingBrian2 wrote: »

With him topping the polls across the Nation in the Republican primaries he has a 50/50 chance of becoming President so with him as the new commander & chief and promises to keep of imposing a border on the Mexican front I can definitely see the Mexican gvt seeing this as a threat to their security. Now Trump might go down the international law route than fighting another costly war but so far I have seen nor heard nothing that would prevent President Trump from taking actions against a belligerent Mexico without causing severe economic and social ramifications.

No, totally ridiculous question

ancapailldorcha

thebeerbaron wrote: »

No, totally ridiculous question

Please try to contribute more than this as this is a forum for serious discussion.

DEFTLEFTHAND

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I'd say he would want to stamp out all illegal border crossings and stripping some Americans of the citizenship. He may also not want to have Mexico be facilitating American party goers traveling down to Mexican resorts and spending their time down there. Thus far Donald Trump has taken a very authoritarian approach to Mexico. Given this he would dissolve the NAFTA agreements and reopen discussions on US Mexican trade relations.

See this all playing out in Mexico will be hard to tell. A large Mexican opposition to the honour and respect of the Nation is being challenged by a US President has the potential to force the Mexican gvt to act. The Mexican President cannot be seen to let his countries reputation be ruined like this. He might consider boycotting American made goods and stop attending functions in America. We could see the Mexican and American positions get increasingly antagonistic.

Honour? Respect? What reputation does Mexico have now? The country has a terrible name and is rife with corruption and crime. It's been a basket case for generations. It's sad in many ways. So much untapped potential.

Trump wants them to control their side of the border area in a more stringent fashion which is a perfectly reasonable request. It's their responsibility. Illegal immigration is a genuine issue for the USA.

RobertKK

Some people react to Trump in a way that is not intelligent, I mean they think 'Trump' 'Republican party' and have already a backward view of things as if the Democrats are some beacon of light.
If you asked the same people if they supported illegal immigration into Ireland, any intelligent Irish person would say 'No, it is not how one should enter Ireland, we don't know who is coming into our country if we tolerated it'.

Trump is right, the US needs to put in more controls to help prevent illegals entering, in a time where terrorism is a growing risk, the US/Mexico border is where a lot of illegal stuff is happening - drugs, people smuggling, God knows what else.

KingBrian2

RobertKK wrote: »

Some people react to Trump in a way that is not intelligent, I mean they think 'Trump' 'Republican party' and have already a backward view of things as if the Democrats are some beacon of light.
If you asked the same people if they supported illegal immigration into Ireland, any intelligent Irish person would say 'No, it is not how one should enter Ireland, we don't know who is coming into our country if we tolerated it'.

Trump is right, the US needs to put in more controls to help prevent illegals entering, in a time where terrorism is a growing risk, the US/Mexico border is where a lot of illegal stuff is happening - drugs, people smuggling, God knows what else.

He is right. The issue is what can he do. So far his bellicose proposals are just that, noise. He needs to present workable proposals or else even his supporters will drift away from him. Take it all the way to Mexico City if he needs to.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

Some people react to Trump in a way that is not intelligent, I mean they think 'Trump' 'Republican party' and have already a backward view of things as if the Democrats are some beacon of light.
If you asked the same people if they supported illegal immigration into Ireland, any intelligent Irish person would say 'No, it is not how one should enter Ireland, we don't know who is coming into our country if we tolerated it'.

Trump is right, the US needs to put in more controls to help prevent illegals entering, in a time where terrorism is a growing risk, the US/Mexico border is where a lot of illegal stuff is happening - drugs, people smuggling, God knows what else.

Poor comparison, a much better one would be "if you asked the same people if they supported building a wall around the entire coastline/N. Ireland of the country to stop people getting in, while trying to force other countries to pay for it..."

And kicking all the illegal immigrants out in one fell swoop would be crippling to the American economy, it's simply not a practical idea by any means, and has shades of his multiple business failing within it.

BoJack Horseman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The Arab Israeli war of course. Caused directly by Jewish encroachment onto Palestinian lands and ending with the Independence of Israel

No brian.... you are (somehow) confusing your own premise for your thread!

Your scenario would involve the arab nations attacking Israel because Israel would not allow an influx of illegal immigrants...

This scenario, as we know, never existed.

So, again... what war has ever been caused by a country not allowing illegal migrants from another?
And why would the prevention of illegal migration cause a declaration of war from Mexico (again... this is your silly premise!!)

KingBrian2

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No brian.... you are (somehow) confusing your own premise for your thread!

Your scenario would involve the arab nations attacking Israel because Israel would not allow an influx of illegal immigrants...

This scenario, as we know, never existed.

So, again... what war has ever been caused by a country not allowing illegal migrants from another?
And why would the prevention of illegal migration cause a declaration of war from Mexico (again... this is your silly premise!!)

The right of return of Palestinians to their former lands and the denial of Israel to grant this demand is the reason the peace between Arab and Israeli is at a standstill.

Black Swan

RobertKK wrote: »

Trump last night mentioned that the wars and interventions in the Middle East has cost the US $4 trillion, he says the US needs to be spending that money on infrastructure in the US rather than wasting it as has been happening.

There will be no Mexican war, nor will Mexico pay for Trump's Wall. Is this Trump infrastructure statement that's related to taxes wasted on wars inconsistent with his many statements that he wants to build a bigger, stronger military? The US already has the largest military budget in the world, larger than the combined military budgets of all EU nations, and 3 times the budget of the largest nation in population PRC, and Trump wants to waste more monies on military just like their so-called fiscal conservative Reagan, the 1st president to double the federal deficit with his arms race.

KingBrian2

Black Swan wrote: »

There will be no Mexican war, nor will Mexico pay for Trump's Wall. Is this Trump infrastructure statement that's related to taxes wasted on wars inconsistent with his many statements that he wants to build a bigger, stronger military? The US already has the largest military budget in the world, larger than the combined military budgets of all EU nations, and 3 times the budget of the largest nation in population PRC, and Trump wants to waste more monies on military just like their so-called fiscal conservative Reagan, the 1st president to double the federal deficit with his arms race.

Just to pick up on that he also wants to build up the Navy as well.

BoJack Horseman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The right of return of Palestinians to their former lands and the denial of Israel to grant this demand is the reason the peace between Arab and Israeli is at a standstill.

That was a consequence of, but not the cause of the 1948 war.

So, the example doesn't work... and your whole premise is bogus.

KingBrian2

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

That was a consequence of, but not the cause of the 1948 war.

So, the example doesn't work... and your whole premise is bogus.

You seem to dismiss that their ever was a mass movement of migrants to Palestine for the creation of Israel and we are seeing a similar situation all over the world in places like the border states in America and along the European Mediterranean route.

BoJack Horseman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Just to pick up on that he also wants to build up the Navy as well.

It would be a struggle.... the fleet has reduced so fast there is zero chance he could reverse the cuts under the Obama administrations in 8 years, let alone 4.

Year Combat fleet size
2000 243
2005 220
2010 225
2012 210
2014 205
2015 197
2016 191

I doubt candidate Clinton would oppose at least arresting the decline, if not increasing again.

BoJack Horseman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You seem to dismiss that their ever was a mass movement of migrants to Palestine for the creation of Israel and we are seeing a similar situation all over the world in places like the border states in America and along the European Mediterranean route.

Nope, I just know that refusing to take illegal immigrants is not casus belli anywhere!
I am dismissing your flim-flam that Mexico will attack the USA if some illegal immigrants are turned back.

It's quite simple.

KingBrian2

[/code]

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Nope, I just know that refusing to take illegal immigrants is not casus belli anywhere!
I am dismissing your flim-flam that Mexico will attack the USA if some illegal immigrants are turned back.

It's quite simple.

Violent criminals yes I realize the immigrations system makes them illegal regardless violent thugs are in the US and Mexico is doing nothing about it. They can't seem to control their own country. If you have not being keeping up with developments in Mexico the situation has deteriorated a lot of unrest over student killings.

InTheTrees

KingBrian2 wrote: »

[/code]
If you have not being keeping up with developments in Mexico the situation has deteriorated a lot of unrest over student killings.

Parts of Mexico have been a war zone for many years.

Between 2006 and 2012 at least 60,000 dead. Over 120,000 total and its still going on.

It makes the northern ireland troubles look like a childrens party in terms of brutality too. Piles of headless bodies dumped on the roads is a common message they use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War

BoJack Horseman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

They can't seem to control their own country.

Yet you are still pushing this ridiculous premise that somehow Ejército Mexicano is going to cross the Rio Grande & invade.

You haven't at any point advise how or why this will happen either, remembering that it is your thread!
.

KingBrian2

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Yet you are still pushing this ridiculous premise that somehow Ejército Mexicano is going to cross the Rio Grande & invade.

You haven't at any point advise how or why this will happen either, remembering that it is your thread!
.

Yes I have you haven't been paying attention I stated it at the beginning as to why Mexico would feel anger towards Trump for his actions and statements. Potential suspending trade relations with Mexico. Many people are part of the Trump is a joke candidate. He has 50/50 chance of becoming President what will Mexico do then.

BoJack Horseman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Yes I have you haven't been paying attention I stated it at the beginning as to why Mexico would feel anger towards Trump for his actions and statements.

And you have still to actually get to the part where Mexico invades the USA.

You haven't told us how.... or why (stopping illegal immigrants is not a reason).

a simple question for you to answer; What does the Mexican declaration of war look like?
What will it give as its reasons for its war.... (and subsequent crushing defeat).