Natalie Kitroeff, the host for "The Daily" says: "I’m just curious if we know at what point President Trump is going to be satisfied with the progress that Mexico is making. Like, do we know if this move to take out El Mencho might have appeased Trump and bought the Mexican government some time?"
Jack Nicas, the Mexico City bureau chief for the NYT, says: "I think Trump’s goalposts are infinite. And the strongest evidence of that is that less than 24 hours after the Mexican government killed El Mencho, probably the single biggest achievement that the government has had in the cartel war in years, Trump posted online, quote, 'Mexico must step up their efforts on cartel and drugs.' And that is, I think, a clear sign that the demands aren’t going to end. And probably that’s the point. And possibly that’s also what is necessary, because there are signs that Trump’s pressure is creating a dynamic in Mexico that really hasn’t existed before, and perhaps is creating the environment that is necessary to finally defeat, or at least really confront these massive, powerful criminal organizations in a way that the government hasn’t. And I think that there are Mexicans who, while they don’t want a unilateral strike from the US government, do welcome Trump’s attention to this matter and pressure on this issue."
Natalie Kitroeff: "You’re saying the goalposts moving, that could be seen as a good thing? In one way, it’s a bait and switch. But in another, that’s kind of just how progress works?"
Jack Nicas: "Well, it could be a good thing, but I think it depends on how far it goes. If Trump is just putting consistent pressure on, and that is enabling and forcing the Mexican government to do what it needs to do to take control of the cartels, I think many Mexicans agree that is a great thing. However, if Trump ultimately says, you didn’t do what I want and now I’m going to bomb you, well, I think that’s a whole other story because that is going to destabilize the government, inflame the situation, and really throw us into the unknown."
పోస్ట్లు
89 కామెంట్లు:
Trump is mitigating drug migration (e.g. George "Fentanyl" Floyd Syndrome), human trafficking, child grooming, and entertaining abortive ideation in service of cartel progress.
For the sake of law-abiding Mexicans, isn't it about time that Mexico stopped the cartels? Wouldn't that lower the crime and murder rates? Wouldn't it raise prices on illegal drugs for people like Hunter Biden?
Trump is not going to bomb Mexico and destablize the government. That's TDS talking.
The central organizing principle for the Dems is to hate and oppose Trump. That's what they live for.
The Cartels rent the Mexican politicians, including the President. The guy killed was paying the rent or was sacrificed to keep Trump from killing the rest of the cartel leaders
The federal governments should have wiped out the cartels root & branch by 1995.
Of course the Mexican President & the NYT are guessing what Trump will do. They are status quo thinkers.
OccupyTenochtitlan? AntiCa? Pluck CAIR? American Civil Rights and Lives matter.
Chuck Schumer, "“Of course we support Americans; we’re not going to be a prop in Donald Trump’s little show.”
Great reason for not standing for the Coast Guard rescue swimmer who saved 169 lives. Or little Deliah who survived getting hit by a truck driven by an illegal alien.
Cartel incursions into and human rites performed in privileged estates should garner durable attention and a forward-looking response.
And I think that there are Mexicans who, while they don’t want a unilateral strike from the US government, do welcome Trump’s attention to this matter
Trump is so in their heads!
I don't think that urging Mexico to continue to pursue the cartels after they killed one guy who ran one cartel is "moving the goalposts." Trump's position was never "reduce the number of cartels by one," it was "do something to stop the drug flow and human trafficking at the border."
Schumer et al prefer to use Americans and legal immigrants in trials of capital and control with Diversity, Equivocation, and Indifference
America stands with Mexico. And not for gerrymandering with "benefits". Here's to mitigating progress and liberal license.
"For the sake of law-abiding Mexicans, isn't it about time that Mexico stopped the cartels?"
In some parts of Mexico, the cartels are becoming the government. When people have a dispute, they don't take it to the courts. They take it to the jefe of the local cartel. I'm talking about things like unpaid debts, and property disputes. The basis of government is a monopoly on the use of force. And effectively, that is what the cartels have. The judge will fine you if you don't do what he says. The cartel will kill you and your family. It is far from clear that the Mexican government has the ability, let alone the will, to reclaim power from the cartels. Hell, the Arizona government isn't far behind.
Right now, Trump is using the Yojimbo strategy. He’s pressing the corrupt Mexican President and her allies into killing a few of the cartel members. If they don’t kill the Sinaloa Cartel head, it will look like the government killed The Mencho at the behest of the Sinaloa Cartel or the underlings of the CJNG.
If the Cartels kill the President of Mexico, then Trump will have the excuse to send in the U.S. military to wipe out the cartels.
An alternate way of expressing this same sentiment is that Trump is providing plausible deniability for the Mexican government to do something it might already want to do. As a follow on to Jupiter's comment, they might like regaining at least a balance of power with the cartels and this gives them the opportunity to do it with the ability to avoid taking obvious sides. "It wasn't our idea!! Trump made us do it"
Trump's ambition is comprehensive.
There is no reason Mexico can't do what El Salvador did.
"goalposts are infinite" Nah. Just far away. Still lots of cartels operating, lots of drugs being smuggled, lots of Mexican officials on the take. One capo dead is just a start.
“Trump posted online, quote, 'Mexico must step up their efforts on cartel and drugs.'”
Fine with me, as long as Mexico pays for it. But maybe get them to pay for that wall first.
When Escobar was finally taken down, it was a if that was the end of the war on drugs. Maybe Trump wants to make sure that doesn’t happen again. No victory laps, no getting ahead of the Puerto Rican Day Parade to make it look like you’re leading it. No spiking the football at the end zone because there is no spoon at the end zone, until the Ozempic daughters of the revolution sing.
Look at the bloodshed associated with his arrest. I think two dozen of the Mexican forces were killed in the process of arresting him.....Compare and contrast this with the arrest of Maduro. I presume Maduro had better security than the drug kingpin, but none of the American forces got killed. I don't think this makes the Mexican forces look bad, but it certainly makes the American operations look good.
Cartels NEVER use the legal system. But they use the most horrible torture and murders they can find
to enforce their rules. And they always seek out for destruction the Drug Sniffing Dogs. Defend them if you are insane.
They targeted civilians as cabellos motor cycle gangs did
The cali cartel helped the search bloc target escobar and co
9 out of 10 Mexicans agree.
Make the pie higher, NYT guy
@Jupiter identifies the real, long-standing problem: the cartels are as strong as, or stronger than, the Mexican federal government. The cartels bribe or kill members of government, law enforcement, and media to keep their hold. (The guards around El Chapo at the Colorado supermax prison get changed frequently to prevent bribes and escapes.) The cartels make huge amounts of $$ pushing drugs and trafficking people across the U.S. border. Trump, who has plenty of leverage plus CIA intel, pushes Mexico to hand over a couple hundred lower-level cartel middle managers for US prosecution and to then take out El Mencho. Based on his dealings with the Mafia families in the building trades, Trump probably has an idea of how the cartel power struggles might proceed. The Mexican federal government can't go back at the this point. So no shit, NYT, goal posts move in changing situations. I'd like to know whether and how Carlos Slim has been involved behind the scenes - in Mexico and at the NYT.
There is always that one Mexican that takes after the Herzog Pingüino and heads for the Mountains por una chingada.
This is the kind of talk you get when one encounters a high achiever for the first time…
Way back in the long ago day, lusty young women described guys who wouldn't or couldn't "do the deed" as NATO. As in No Action Talk Only. When Chuck You Schumer says "of course the Democrats support Americans"--well he's NATO. Come back and see me Chuck when you and your party have actually done something good for Americans out in flyover country. Until then inhale a giant dose of just shut up.
Mexico's government could do a lot more for Mexico's people - regardless of the US President and his goalposts.
Mexico is either a failed state, or it isn't. If it can't prevent a parallel narco-state from controlling its territory, it's a failed state.
Remember how orgasmic the Palace Guard Press used to get whenever JFK or Clinton or Obama would loftily prattle about limitless possibilities?
"..I think many Mexicans agree that is a great thing.."
YET ANOTHER OUTRAGE!
1st, Demon Trump takes out the Venezuelan dictator..
Much to the agreement (and JOY!) of the Venezuelans..
NOW, Demon Trump is doing things that the Mexicans agree is GREAT!
THIS DEMON Trump MUST BE Stopped!
How can people HATE him (as they MUST), if he KEEPS doing things they think are GREAT?
If they don’t kill the Sinaloa Cartel head, it will look like the government killed The Mencho at the behest of the Sinaloa Cartel or the underlings of the CJNG.
Either of those options is eminently plausible, and more besides.
Let’s stop ignoring the elephant in the room. It is estimated that during the last decade the US has sold 2.5 million firearms to the Mexican Narcos. The U.S. is a major consumer of illicit drugs. Americans buy the drugs, sell the firearms and then launder the money. It is a symbiotic relationship. But let’s blame Mexico.
Even top members of the administration mentioned snorting from toilet seats...
Former Honduras President Hernández and his co-conspirators according to the U.S. DOJ, trafficked more than 400 tons of U.S. -- bound cocaine through Honduras between 2004 and 2022. In his pardon announcement, Trump asserted that Hernández had been treated "unfairly.
Democratic politicians won’t stand with the American people if that’s what Trump wants? Their hatred of Trump is stronger than their love of country. (To the surprise of no one.)
The whole point of rhetorical goalposts is that there is a specific event that constitutes scoring a goal. To move the goalposts is to change the event to avoid admitting the other person successfully scored.
Therefore, “infinite goalposts” is an oxymoron—it just means there are no goalposts. The Democratic activists at the Times should learn what words mean. It is their job, after all.
"The Cartels rent the Mexican politicians, including the President." I suspect that they rent a lot of Dem politicians too. Closing the borders has disrupted a big money earner for the cartels.
The sinaloa heads are laying no (,there might be one that hasnt learned the lesson of not being seen)
Trump isn’t moving the goalposts. NYT wants the goalpost moved closer to them.
However, if Trump ultimately says, you didn’t do what I want and now I’m going to bomb you, well, I think that’s a whole other story because that is going to destabilize the government, inflame the situation, and really throw us into the unknown."
Then the Mexican gov't had better do enough to keep him from doing that.
By not telling them what qualifies as "enough" he forces them to do more than the minimum
Chuck Schumer, "“Of course we support Americans; we’re not going to be a prop in Donald Trump’s little show.”
So, Schumer is claiming Democrats are stupid, not evil.
Because by refusing to stand up they WERE "props" in Trump's show of "the Democrats hate Americans".
Progressive prescriptions (no pun intended, maybe, baby).
Kakistocracy said...
Let’s stop ignoring the elephant in the room. It is estimated that during the last decade the US has sold 2.5 million firearms to the Mexican Narcos.
With help from Barrack Obama no less.
Food fight a la Cartel. A frog match with legs.
There is no reason Mexico can't do what El Salvador did.
I'm seriously thinking of taking a vacation in El Salvador. My dad spent some time there before the Communists tried to take it over in the 70's and 80's, and said it was lovely. Under Bukele it's certainly safer than a great many cities in the US.
Achilles said...
There is no reason Mexico can't do what El Salvador did.
Sure there is: the President and her Administration are owned by the cartels
Kakistocracy said...
Let’s stop ignoring the elephant in the room. It is estimated that during the last decade the US has sold 2.5 million firearms to the Mexican Narcos.
It's not American gun dealers selling them automatic weapons.
The world class stupidity of the people who assume that drug smugglers can't also smuggle in guns is just really quite special
Killing a bigshot isnt going to fix this problem. Its a system that needs to be dismantled, which means, given Mexicos circumstances, that many thousands must die. Americans dont like to think realistically.
Let’s stop ignoring the elephant in the room. It is estimated that during the last decade the US has sold 2.5 million firearms to the Mexican Narcos.
And yet every time some massive weapons cache is captured and laid out for display, it includes RPG's, belt fed machine guns, M203 grenade launchers, full-auto M-16's (which can be distinguished at some distance from civilian-legal AR-15's by a third hole and pin above the trigger), Soviet Bloc AK-47's, and many other implements of war that obviously didn't get bought in a typical American gun shop. These narcotraficantes are clearly being supplied by their own military and/or other state actors.
There are American rifles down there, to be sure, but hundreds of thousands of them were deliberately shipped there by the Obama Administration in a cynical attempt to drum up support for domestic gun bans.
Ownership is fungible with a better life and viable future. This is the time to work the art of the deal.
Mexicos problems are several orders of magnitude worse than El Salvadors. In every dimension.
Obama's gun runner to entrap Americans and arm prospective Dreamers? Resonant control, indeed.
Americans dont like to think realistically.
(puffs on cigarillo…)
Perhaps a Taliban-Mexico Affair to arm the government with military state-of-the-art hardware.
buwaya said...
Killing a bigshot isnt going to fix this problem. Its a system that needs to be dismantled, which means, given Mexicos circumstances, that many thousands must die. Americans dont like to think realistically.
It wouldn't take many thousands.
One week of sustained JSOC operation would have the narcos burning off their tattoos and hiding in mommy's basement.
Jack Nicas, the Mexico City bureau chief for the NYT, says …
A signal that everything following it will be opinion-heavy and essentially fact free.
"And that is, I think, a clear sign that the demands aren’t going to end."
A rhetorical exaggeration.
"Killing a bigshot isn't going to fix this problem. It's a system that needs to be dismantled, which means, given Mexico's circumstances, that many thousands must die."
Not a rhetorical exaggeration. The Narcos are well-armed with AFVs and even artillery; They are also deeply embedded. The cartels will get their licks in. Mexico faces a fight for survival as a nation-state. Letting things continue will reduce what remains of that constitutional republic into a jigsaw of barbarian feifdoms.
I once visited a Mexican friend, who is an economist, in Mexico City. He told me that from his perspective you have to create a monopoly on the supply side, as monopolies are inherently inefficient (go hard after all the cartels but one, then hit the monopoly, but not so hard that you reintroduce competition -- this implies it's irrealistic to want to drive down supply to zero).
On the demand side (U.S.) you had to drive down demand for imported drugs (decriminalize and medicalize consumption, improve social policies to get people into jobs, etc).
It was an interesting perspective -- both arguments make a lot of sense to me. As Margaret Thatcher said ’you can’t buck the markets.’ Although she wasn’t talking about the drugs trade, the same principle applies. Legalize it, control it, tax it and for the two percent who become addicted, treat them medically. A little like the alcohol industry perhaps.
"Letting things continue will reduce what remains of that constitutional republic into a jigsaw of barbarian feifdoms."
So... like Minnesota?
The chinese learned the lesson of the opium wars and played it back to us using mexico as the trampoline
Buwaya is the only one here who understands anything about how dire the situation is in Mexico. The comparison to El Salvador is ridiculous. Bukele sent the Army, which was not seriously corrupted, to round up a bunch of punks who had been terrorizing their neighborhoods. Some of them had pistoles, which they didn't dare use against the Army. And the Army did what he told them to do. And the prisons he put them in were not run by their buddies. The only serious problem was American NGOs, but he had the balls to tell them to pound sand.
Look at the mutant hives that cities like ny and los angeles, devolved to under massive pot consumption
Mexico isn't like that. Mexico is more like South Viet Nam fighting the Viet Cong. There are huge regions of Mexico where the various branches of government make no attempt to enforce the law, because it's too dangerous. And the cartels know how to work that situation. They don't mount frontal attacks on Army barracks. They threaten people's families. And they carry out their threats.
Furthermore, the cartels are not actively attempting to overthrow the government. They want to kill each other, but they see the government mostly as a useful and controllable economic actor. They are perfectly content to have the government keep the wheels turning, as long as it doesn't get in their way. The cartels are only an existential threat to the Mexican government if it insists on making them one. Which thus far, it doesn't.
The jalisco cartel seems to gained the jump on sinaloa and the zetad
The jalisco cartel seems to gained the jump on sinaloa and the zetad
I stand with the cartels. We need more meth and fentanyl to rid us of our undesirables. We’re not sending our best, but we ought to send them out of our misery, one way or another
Weve seen what drug legimitization leads to a dark place
Street without an exit
Drug legalization would work just fine if the Democrats who control our cities didn't insist on wasting tax money on supplying narcan.
When we bought this house, 28 years ago, I heard sirens maybe four times a year. A fire or two, and some heart attacks. Now I hear them at least once a week, usually at night. Government ambulances delivering narcan to their clients.
No it was an evil strategem from the jump
A dirty little secret is that houses don't burn much any more. They're built better, and people don't smoke indoors like they used to. The modern rate of building fires is a fraction of what it used to be. If it weren't for drug addicts, the budget for "emergency services" could be cut 80%.
"No it was an evil strategem from the jump"
I assume you mean drug legalization. That it may have been, but it is nonetheless none of the fucking government's business what I put in my body. But neither is it the government's business to stop what I put in my body from killing me.
Good. Why should he accept a temporary victory? There is no solution barring caning for American drug users, but baby steps will do for now.
"That it may have been, but it is nonetheless none of the fucking government's business what I put in my body."
Ho-hum, the tiresome old libertarian argument that conveniently ignores whose business it is if what one person puts into his body adversely affects someone else. Is that a tort, a crime, or just an unfortunate coincidence? Asking for a friend.
Between the exit of the first Trump administration and the inauguration of the second approximately 10 million illegal immigrants crossed our borders. Under FJB. no IDs were checked, no belongings were searched, no contraband was seized. If only 1% of those millions were cartel mules, what then? If each one carried a conveniently small amount of fentanyl, say half a kilo, the street value would have been $3.8 billion, making the Big Guy's cut about $300 mil
"Ho-hum, the tiresome old libertarian argument that conveniently ignores whose business it is if what one person puts into his body adversely affects someone else."
Well. You seem to have allowed some ideas into your mind that adversely affect others, Quaestor. We'd like to let you go around thinking whatever you like, but it's just too dangerous. You have been thinking unapproved thoughts, and we'll have to put a stop to that. Do you want to turn yourself in for re-grooving? Or would you prefer to be hunted down by the Hell-drones? Either way, you'll end up in the camps, and your thinking will be rectified. But I hear those Hell-drones are no joke.
Sheinbaum simply is growing more afraid of being maduroed than she is of being a cartel victim. The least attractive option is life in prison in disgrace. Perhaps our new intelligence assistance has created a defensive bubble around her as well as targeting the heads of the four main cartels.
Quaestor said... the tiresome old libertarian argument that conveniently ignores whose business it is if what one person puts into his body adversely affects someone else. Is that a tort, a crime, or just an unfortunate coincidence?
Depends on the ":effect," doesn't it? If there's no effect, then it's nothing, not even an unfortunate coincidence. If it's a tort, then it's a tort and if it's a crime then it's a crime.
The legal system is fully capable of addressing the act without concerning itself with what may or may have led the actor to act. (Which, in fact, but for certain bleeding heart judges, the law has never concerned itself with).
More like 20 million, (with got away)
It is a practical impossibility to amend the constitution. Congress can’t even legislate with the filibuster and government shutdowns. So the only approach left is fiat actions that can permanently change government structure due to the infeasibility of reversal. Letting 10 million illegals in was one move. Limiting government funding of partisan unaccountable NGO’s is another. Trump’s play to take Hamas, Iran, Venezuela, and the Mexican Cartels off the table is the supply side approach. Once they are gone they are not coming back for a while.
Europe and China/Russia want the US to have many enemies to humble it and make it weak. Trump has three years to make irreversible change, perhaps. If that group of enemies wants to win they must destroy Trump. That is why assassination is so popular.
Killing one kingpin was never the goalpost for anything. The cartels are not like governments where taking out the leader changes things. Cartels are rotten all the way through. There are no freedom fighters in the ranks. Plenty of cartel animals just see losing a leader as an opportunity for himself.
If it weren't for drug addicts, the budget for "emergency services" could be cut 80%.
I doubt that. Half the workload in one emergency room I am familiar with is comprised of nursing-home patients who suffer a "ground-level fall". Every time this happens, even if it's only a slow slide from the toilet to the floor, with the patients denying any pain or injury, there is always a 911 call, ambulance ride, and a $30,000 ER workup including whole-body CT scans. It is ENTIRELY due to the pirates of the plaintiff's bar, who make tons of money suing nursing homes for negligence and doctors for malpractice.
Bomb Mexico? That’s bulwark level stupidly.
Like the mafia found, you can find plenty of goons but there are few smart enough to be the big boss. Being an effective drug lord is a highly specific skill set. You need to be pathological enough to rule the soldiers while having political skills and access to capital. Being Jessie James is no longer enough. So regularly killing Mr. Big from time to time strongly disincentivizes recruitment to the top job and reduces the effectiveness of the organization. Weak leadership leads to poor performance.
"I think Trump’s goalposts are infinite."
That makes no sense. What he should have said was that Trump's movements of the goalposts is infinite.
"That it may have been, but it is nonetheless none of the fucking government's business what I put in my body."
That's a nice belief. But if it were accepted as true, suicide would be legal in all circumstances. And the only "prescription drugs" would be antibiotics.
And if it "should" be true, that's only in a place that has NO "welfare" programs of any sort.
Because if we do have welfare programs, then the gov't most certainly does have the right to make rules about what the people on the dole can put into their bodies.
Because there's no way in hell that I should be paying to keep you alive while you're paying for illegal drugs
"That's a nice belief. But if it were accepted as true, suicide would be legal in all circumstances. And the only "prescription drugs" would be antibiotics."
Suicide is already legal in all circumstances, as it should be. The concern nowadays is that there are people who want to make it mandatory.
And there should be no "prescription drugs". Just like there are no "prescription churches", or "prescription breakfasts".
Although, come to think of it, the massive abuse of antibiotics by the medical industry, which has led to the development of resistant bacteria, is a much better example than cocaine or heroin, of a situation where one person's drug use harms others.
As a teen-ager I took LSD, mescaline and psilocybin. All were, of course, illegal, but that was not a serious impediment to using them. I haven't taken any of them in over 50 years, but I have been reading that many older people find that taking psilocybin a time or two greatly improves their lives in multiple ways. So I'd kind of like to try it. But in Oregon, it's only legal if you pay some "trained" idiot to "administer" it. I gather it grows wild around here, but I'm not going to start eating wild mushrooms. It's a pity I can't just go buy some professionally grown and processed psilocybin. But that would endanger Quaestor.
Suicide is already legal in all circumstances, as it should be.
If that were true, no State would have laws allowing the involuntary psychiatric confinement of people who tried and failed
కామెంట్ను పోస్ట్ చేయండి
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.