BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

contrario said:

---

contrario said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

So, our President agreed to a deal where Mexico is sending "troops" from a National Guard that didn't exist before last Christmas, and you're claiming this as a win?

You deserve to be fooled.

---

They're arresting women and children traveling on foot. I don't think 30 months of Navy SEAL training is a prerequisite.

---

No one said it would take 30 months. But surely you realize it will take more than 6, right? It took over a year of planning for Nike to roll out our new uniform campaign.

You think creating an entire national guard infrastructure will go faster?

I mean, sure. Mexico is known for its efficient government and all...

---

I would get your point if Mexico didn't have an army at all, but it's not like they were starting from ground zero. Even the Washington Post is saying Mexico is sending its "new national guard" to the southern border this week. Are you ready to concede that you were wrong about Mexico not having a national guard, or are you going to argue against the reporting of the Washington Post as well?

---

BBL?

---

I'm really not making this up. As it is, these troops don't really exist. They're scrambling to get them there. The "National guard" is about as real as the Space Force.

This is a joke.

The National Guard that Trump is bragging about us 6,000 troops that haven deployed yet and won't for months.

---

I'm not sure how the Mexican military works, but I do know many well trained U.S servicemen join the National Guard or the Reserves after their active duty ends.

May be apples to oranges, but the U.S. would have no issue filling 6,000 spots and it wouldn't take anywhere close to 6 months.

The infrastructure may not be ready, but the already trained service members would be using the same system so it's nowhere near like starting from scratch.

---

That's a fair statement.

But the entire point of this Mexican National Guard -which was the brainchild of Obrador- was that this would be a new security force that would be half police/half military force, specifically created to be free of corruption and able to handle internal security issues. Specifically, things like the gas theft (it's been fascinating to read/hear about the PemEx gas theft issues he's been dealing with) and insane murder rates/cartels.

The specific point of the National Guard was to be new. Not saying there won't be trained soldiers/overlap. But it is supposed to be new. I've literally been reading about this stuff for months. That's why I made the points I made.

---

How weird. It's almost as if someone came along and suddenly got them to shift their priorities from internal security issues to emergency border control.

---

It's a token effort, though. And one they agreed to MONTHS AGO.

The big thing Trump wanted, was the safe 3rd Party country provision and Mexico told him to **** off.

Trump failed and he's claiming he won.

---

It's far from a token effort, which is why it's become so controversial in Mexico. 6,000 troops is equivalent to the entire police force of several of the larger provinces.

---

We can continue to argue that point. But what is beyond argument is that it WASNT the big thing Trump wanted. And it was agreed to months ago, prior to the Tariff threats.

---

The typical result of real negotiation is that neither side gets everything they want. And by Mexico's own account, it's simply not true that everything was decided months ago. The Remain in Mexico policy has been newly expanded, and the deployment of troops to the border has been newly prioritized.

---

You're describing free breadsticks.

---

That's your perspective as an American who was probably content with the catch and release policy. The Mexican perspective is somewhat different. El Universal ran an editorial this week calling it a major commitment and lamenting the high cost of appeasing the monster in the White House.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

contrario said:

---

contrario said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

So, our President agreed to a deal where Mexico is sending "troops" from a National Guard that didn't exist before last Christmas, and you're claiming this as a win?

You deserve to be fooled.

---

They're arresting women and children traveling on foot. I don't think 30 months of Navy SEAL training is a prerequisite.

---

No one said it would take 30 months. But surely you realize it will take more than 6, right? It took over a year of planning for Nike to roll out our new uniform campaign.

You think creating an entire national guard infrastructure will go faster?

I mean, sure. Mexico is known for its efficient government and all...

---

I would get your point if Mexico didn't have an army at all, but it's not like they were starting from ground zero. Even the Washington Post is saying Mexico is sending its "new national guard" to the southern border this week. Are you ready to concede that you were wrong about Mexico not having a national guard, or are you going to argue against the reporting of the Washington Post as well?

---

BBL?

---

I'm really not making this up. As it is, these troops don't really exist. They're scrambling to get them there. The "National guard" is about as real as the Space Force.

This is a joke.

The National Guard that Trump is bragging about us 6,000 troops that haven deployed yet and won't for months.

---

I'm not sure how the Mexican military works, but I do know many well trained U.S servicemen join the National Guard or the Reserves after their active duty ends.

May be apples to oranges, but the U.S. would have no issue filling 6,000 spots and it wouldn't take anywhere close to 6 months.

The infrastructure may not be ready, but the already trained service members would be using the same system so it's nowhere near like starting from scratch.

---

That's a fair statement.

But the entire point of this Mexican National Guard -which was the brainchild of Obrador- was that this would be a new security force that would be half police/half military force, specifically created to be free of corruption and able to handle internal security issues. Specifically, things like the gas theft (it's been fascinating to read/hear about the PemEx gas theft issues he's been dealing with) and insane murder rates/cartels.

The specific point of the National Guard was to be new. Not saying there won't be trained soldiers/overlap. But it is supposed to be new. I've literally been reading about this stuff for months. That's why I made the points I made.

---

How weird. It's almost as if someone came along and suddenly got them to shift their priorities from internal security issues to emergency border control.

---

It's a token effort, though. And one they agreed to MONTHS AGO.

The big thing Trump wanted, was the safe 3rd Party country provision and Mexico told him to **** off.

Trump failed and he's claiming he won.

---

It's far from a token effort, which is why it's become so controversial in Mexico. 6,000 troops is equivalent to the entire police force of several of the larger provinces.

---

We can continue to argue that point. But what is beyond argument is that it WASNT the big thing Trump wanted. And it was agreed to months ago, prior to the Tariff threats.

---

The typical result of real negotiation is that neither side gets everything they want. And by Mexico's own account, it's simply not true that everything was decided months ago. The Remain in Mexico policy has been newly expanded, and the deployment of troops to the border has been newly prioritized.

---

You're describing free breadsticks.

---

That's your perspective as an American who was probably content with the catch and release policy. The Mexican perspective is somewhat different. El Universal ran an editorial this week calling it a major commitment and lamenting the high cost of appeasing the monster in the White House.

---

And the one thing Trump REALLY wanted was the safe 3rd country agreement and didn't get it. He could have ruined Mexico with the tariffs and backed off.

Why do YOU think he did that?

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

contrario said:

---

contrario said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

So, our President agreed to a deal where Mexico is sending "troops" from a National Guard that didn't exist before last Christmas, and you're claiming this as a win?

You deserve to be fooled.

---

They're arresting women and children traveling on foot. I don't think 30 months of Navy SEAL training is a prerequisite.

---

No one said it would take 30 months. But surely you realize it will take more than 6, right? It took over a year of planning for Nike to roll out our new uniform campaign.

You think creating an entire national guard infrastructure will go faster?

I mean, sure. Mexico is known for its efficient government and all...

---

I would get your point if Mexico didn't have an army at all, but it's not like they were starting from ground zero. Even the Washington Post is saying Mexico is sending its "new national guard" to the southern border this week. Are you ready to concede that you were wrong about Mexico not having a national guard, or are you going to argue against the reporting of the Washington Post as well?

---

BBL?

---

I'm really not making this up. As it is, these troops don't really exist. They're scrambling to get them there. The "National guard" is about as real as the Space Force.

This is a joke.

The National Guard that Trump is bragging about us 6,000 troops that haven deployed yet and won't for months.

---

I'm not sure how the Mexican military works, but I do know many well trained U.S servicemen join the National Guard or the Reserves after their active duty ends.

May be apples to oranges, but the U.S. would have no issue filling 6,000 spots and it wouldn't take anywhere close to 6 months.

The infrastructure may not be ready, but the already trained service members would be using the same system so it's nowhere near like starting from scratch.

---

That's a fair statement.

But the entire point of this Mexican National Guard -which was the brainchild of Obrador- was that this would be a new security force that would be half police/half military force, specifically created to be free of corruption and able to handle internal security issues. Specifically, things like the gas theft (it's been fascinating to read/hear about the PemEx gas theft issues he's been dealing with) and insane murder rates/cartels.

The specific point of the National Guard was to be new. Not saying there won't be trained soldiers/overlap. But it is supposed to be new. I've literally been reading about this stuff for months. That's why I made the points I made.

---

How weird. It's almost as if someone came along and suddenly got them to shift their priorities from internal security issues to emergency border control.

---

It's a token effort, though. And one they agreed to MONTHS AGO.

The big thing Trump wanted, was the safe 3rd Party country provision and Mexico told him to **** off.

Trump failed and he's claiming he won.

---

It's far from a token effort, which is why it's become so controversial in Mexico. 6,000 troops is equivalent to the entire police force of several of the larger provinces.

---

We can continue to argue that point. But what is beyond argument is that it WASNT the big thing Trump wanted. And it was agreed to months ago, prior to the Tariff threats.

---

The typical result of real negotiation is that neither side gets everything they want. And by Mexico's own account, it's simply not true that everything was decided months ago. The Remain in Mexico policy has been newly expanded, and the deployment of troops to the border has been newly prioritized.

---

You're describing free breadsticks.

---

That's your perspective as an American who was probably content with the catch and release policy. The Mexican perspective is somewhat different. El Universal ran an editorial this week calling it a major commitment and lamenting the high cost of appeasing the monster in the White House.

---

And the one thing Trump REALLY wanted was the safe 3rd country agreement and didn't get it. He could have ruined Mexico with the tariffs and backed off.

Why do YOU think he did that?

---

Like I'm sure you wanted to "ruin Mexico?"

Give it a break cream puff

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

contrario said:

---

contrario said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

So, our President agreed to a deal where Mexico is sending "troops" from a National Guard that didn't exist before last Christmas, and you're claiming this as a win?

You deserve to be fooled.

---

They're arresting women and children traveling on foot. I don't think 30 months of Navy SEAL training is a prerequisite.

---

No one said it would take 30 months. But surely you realize it will take more than 6, right? It took over a year of planning for Nike to roll out our new uniform campaign.

You think creating an entire national guard infrastructure will go faster?

I mean, sure. Mexico is known for its efficient government and all...

---

I would get your point if Mexico didn't have an army at all, but it's not like they were starting from ground zero. Even the Washington Post is saying Mexico is sending its "new national guard" to the southern border this week. Are you ready to concede that you were wrong about Mexico not having a national guard, or are you going to argue against the reporting of the Washington Post as well?

---

BBL?

---

I'm really not making this up. As it is, these troops don't really exist. They're scrambling to get them there. The "National guard" is about as real as the Space Force.

This is a joke.

The National Guard that Trump is bragging about us 6,000 troops that haven deployed yet and won't for months.

---

I'm not sure how the Mexican military works, but I do know many well trained U.S servicemen join the National Guard or the Reserves after their active duty ends.

May be apples to oranges, but the U.S. would have no issue filling 6,000 spots and it wouldn't take anywhere close to 6 months.

The infrastructure may not be ready, but the already trained service members would be using the same system so it's nowhere near like starting from scratch.

---

That's a fair statement.

But the entire point of this Mexican National Guard -which was the brainchild of Obrador- was that this would be a new security force that would be half police/half military force, specifically created to be free of corruption and able to handle internal security issues. Specifically, things like the gas theft (it's been fascinating to read/hear about the PemEx gas theft issues he's been dealing with) and insane murder rates/cartels.

The specific point of the National Guard was to be new. Not saying there won't be trained soldiers/overlap. But it is supposed to be new. I've literally been reading about this stuff for months. That's why I made the points I made.

---

How weird. It's almost as if someone came along and suddenly got them to shift their priorities from internal security issues to emergency border control.

---

It's a token effort, though. And one they agreed to MONTHS AGO.

The big thing Trump wanted, was the safe 3rd Party country provision and Mexico told him to **** off.

Trump failed and he's claiming he won.

---

It's far from a token effort, which is why it's become so controversial in Mexico. 6,000 troops is equivalent to the entire police force of several of the larger provinces.

---

We can continue to argue that point. But what is beyond argument is that it WASNT the big thing Trump wanted. And it was agreed to months ago, prior to the Tariff threats.

---

The typical result of real negotiation is that neither side gets everything they want. And by Mexico's own account, it's simply not true that everything was decided months ago. The Remain in Mexico policy has been newly expanded, and the deployment of troops to the border has been newly prioritized.

---

You're describing free breadsticks.

---

That's your perspective as an American who was probably content with the catch and release policy. The Mexican perspective is somewhat different. El Universal ran an editorial this week calling it a major commitment and lamenting the high cost of appeasing the monster in the White House.

---

And the one thing Trump REALLY wanted was the safe 3rd country agreement and didn't get it. He could have ruined Mexico with the tariffs and backed off.

Why do YOU think he did that?

---

Assuming this was like most negotiations, he led with a high demand and backed off when he thought he'd gotten as much as he could. Pretty standard stuff.

---

^^^ Gets it!

Been there done that

Good stuff Sam!!!

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

contrario said:

---

contrario said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

So, our President agreed to a deal where Mexico is sending "troops" from a National Guard that didn't exist before last Christmas, and you're claiming this as a win?

You deserve to be fooled.

---

They're arresting women and children traveling on foot. I don't think 30 months of Navy SEAL training is a prerequisite.

---

No one said it would take 30 months. But surely you realize it will take more than 6, right? It took over a year of planning for Nike to roll out our new uniform campaign.

You think creating an entire national guard infrastructure will go faster?

I mean, sure. Mexico is known for its efficient government and all...

---

I would get your point if Mexico didn't have an army at all, but it's not like they were starting from ground zero. Even the Washington Post is saying Mexico is sending its "new national guard" to the southern border this week. Are you ready to concede that you were wrong about Mexico not having a national guard, or are you going to argue against the reporting of the Washington Post as well?

---

BBL?

---

I'm really not making this up. As it is, these troops don't really exist. They're scrambling to get them there. The "National guard" is about as real as the Space Force.

This is a joke.

The National Guard that Trump is bragging about us 6,000 troops that haven deployed yet and won't for months.

---

I'm not sure how the Mexican military works, but I do know many well trained U.S servicemen join the National Guard or the Reserves after their active duty ends.

May be apples to oranges, but the U.S. would have no issue filling 6,000 spots and it wouldn't take anywhere close to 6 months.

The infrastructure may not be ready, but the already trained service members would be using the same system so it's nowhere near like starting from scratch.

---

That's a fair statement.

But the entire point of this Mexican National Guard -which was the brainchild of Obrador- was that this would be a new security force that would be half police/half military force, specifically created to be free of corruption and able to handle internal security issues. Specifically, things like the gas theft (it's been fascinating to read/hear about the PemEx gas theft issues he's been dealing with) and insane murder rates/cartels.

The specific point of the National Guard was to be new. Not saying there won't be trained soldiers/overlap. But it is supposed to be new. I've literally been reading about this stuff for months. That's why I made the points I made.

---

How weird. It's almost as if someone came along and suddenly got them to shift their priorities from internal security issues to emergency border control.

---

It's a token effort, though. And one they agreed to MONTHS AGO.

The big thing Trump wanted, was the safe 3rd Party country provision and Mexico told him to **** off.

Trump failed and he's claiming he won.

---

It's far from a token effort, which is why it's become so controversial in Mexico. 6,000 troops is equivalent to the entire police force of several of the larger provinces.

---

We can continue to argue that point. But what is beyond argument is that it WASNT the big thing Trump wanted. And it was agreed to months ago, prior to the Tariff threats.

---

The typical result of real negotiation is that neither side gets everything they want. And by Mexico's own account, it's simply not true that everything was decided months ago. The Remain in Mexico policy has been newly expanded, and the deployment of troops to the border has been newly prioritized.

---

You're describing free breadsticks.

---

That's your perspective as an American who was probably content with the catch and release policy. The Mexican perspective is somewhat different. El Universal ran an editorial this week calling it a major commitment and lamenting the high cost of appeasing the monster in the White House.

---

And the one thing Trump REALLY wanted was the safe 3rd country agreement and didn't get it. He could have ruined Mexico with the tariffs and backed off.

Why do YOU think he did that?

---

Assuming this was like most negotiations, he led with a high demand and backed off when he thought he'd gotten as much as he could. Pretty standard stuff.

---

Here's why that doesn't make sense. He already had the agreement in hand. Signed.

He re-opened negotiations insisting on THIS point. And he didn't get it. He didn't get any of it. You guys keep saying he got an agreement signed in blood, but honestly, there's no reason to believe that. There's no evidence Mexico was dragging their feet, either.

There IS evidence that he pushed Senate Republicans too far. Mike Grassley has continued to campaign to roll back Presidential trade powers as of yesterday.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

contrario said:

---

contrario said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

So, our President agreed to a deal where Mexico is sending "troops" from a National Guard that didn't exist before last Christmas, and you're claiming this as a win?

You deserve to be fooled.

---

They're arresting women and children traveling on foot. I don't think 30 months of Navy SEAL training is a prerequisite.

---

No one said it would take 30 months. But surely you realize it will take more than 6, right? It took over a year of planning for Nike to roll out our new uniform campaign.

You think creating an entire national guard infrastructure will go faster?

I mean, sure. Mexico is known for its efficient government and all...

---

I would get your point if Mexico didn't have an army at all, but it's not like they were starting from ground zero. Even the Washington Post is saying Mexico is sending its "new national guard" to the southern border this week. Are you ready to concede that you were wrong about Mexico not having a national guard, or are you going to argue against the reporting of the Washington Post as well?

---

BBL?

---

I'm really not making this up. As it is, these troops don't really exist. They're scrambling to get them there. The "National guard" is about as real as the Space Force.

This is a joke.

The National Guard that Trump is bragging about us 6,000 troops that haven deployed yet and won't for months.

---

I'm not sure how the Mexican military works, but I do know many well trained U.S servicemen join the National Guard or the Reserves after their active duty ends.

May be apples to oranges, but the U.S. would have no issue filling 6,000 spots and it wouldn't take anywhere close to 6 months.

The infrastructure may not be ready, but the already trained service members would be using the same system so it's nowhere near like starting from scratch.

---

That's a fair statement.

But the entire point of this Mexican National Guard -which was the brainchild of Obrador- was that this would be a new security force that would be half police/half military force, specifically created to be free of corruption and able to handle internal security issues. Specifically, things like the gas theft (it's been fascinating to read/hear about the PemEx gas theft issues he's been dealing with) and insane murder rates/cartels.

The specific point of the National Guard was to be new. Not saying there won't be trained soldiers/overlap. But it is supposed to be new. I've literally been reading about this stuff for months. That's why I made the points I made.

---

How weird. It's almost as if someone came along and suddenly got them to shift their priorities from internal security issues to emergency border control.

---

It's a token effort, though. And one they agreed to MONTHS AGO.

The big thing Trump wanted, was the safe 3rd Party country provision and Mexico told him to **** off.

Trump failed and he's claiming he won.

---

It's far from a token effort, which is why it's become so controversial in Mexico. 6,000 troops is equivalent to the entire police force of several of the larger provinces.

---

We can continue to argue that point. But what is beyond argument is that it WASNT the big thing Trump wanted. And it was agreed to months ago, prior to the Tariff threats.

---

The typical result of real negotiation is that neither side gets everything they want. And by Mexico's own account, it's simply not true that everything was decided months ago. The Remain in Mexico policy has been newly expanded, and the deployment of troops to the border has been newly prioritized.

---

You're describing free breadsticks.

---

That's your perspective as an American who was probably content with the catch and release policy. The Mexican perspective is somewhat different. El Universal ran an editorial this week calling it a major commitment and lamenting the high cost of appeasing the monster in the White House.

---

And the one thing Trump REALLY wanted was the safe 3rd country agreement and didn't get it. He could have ruined Mexico with the tariffs and backed off.

Why do YOU think he did that?

---

Assuming this was like most negotiations, he led with a high demand and backed off when he thought he'd gotten as much as he could. Pretty standard stuff.

---

Here's why that doesn't make sense. He already had the agreement in hand. Signed.

He re-opened negotiations insisting on THIS point. And he didn't get it. He didn't get any of it. You guys keep saying he got an agreement signed in blood, but honestly, there's no reason to believe that. There's no evidence Mexico was dragging their feet, either.

There IS evidence that he pushed Senate Republicans too far. Mike Grassley has continued to campaign to roll back Presidential trade powers as of yesterday.

---

^^^ Dreamland ^^^

Mike. I put you on ignore. Not reading your comments.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Mike. I put you on ignore. Not reading your comments.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Mike. I put you on ignore. Not reading your comments.

---

---

lol

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Mike. I put you on ignore. Not reading your comments.

---

You're a liar as we both know

Yes you are

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

contrario said:

---

contrario said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

So, our President agreed to a deal where Mexico is sending "troops" from a National Guard that didn't exist before last Christmas, and you're claiming this as a win?

You deserve to be fooled.

---

They're arresting women and children traveling on foot. I don't think 30 months of Navy SEAL training is a prerequisite.

---

No one said it would take 30 months. But surely you realize it will take more than 6, right? It took over a year of planning for Nike to roll out our new uniform campaign.

You think creating an entire national guard infrastructure will go faster?

I mean, sure. Mexico is known for its efficient government and all...

---

I would get your point if Mexico didn't have an army at all, but it's not like they were starting from ground zero. Even the Washington Post is saying Mexico is sending its "new national guard" to the southern border this week. Are you ready to concede that you were wrong about Mexico not having a national guard, or are you going to argue against the reporting of the Washington Post as well?

---

BBL?

---

I'm really not making this up. As it is, these troops don't really exist. They're scrambling to get them there. The "National guard" is about as real as the Space Force.

This is a joke.

The National Guard that Trump is bragging about us 6,000 troops that haven deployed yet and won't for months.

---

I'm not sure how the Mexican military works, but I do know many well trained U.S servicemen join the National Guard or the Reserves after their active duty ends.

May be apples to oranges, but the U.S. would have no issue filling 6,000 spots and it wouldn't take anywhere close to 6 months.

The infrastructure may not be ready, but the already trained service members would be using the same system so it's nowhere near like starting from scratch.

---

That's a fair statement.

But the entire point of this Mexican National Guard -which was the brainchild of Obrador- was that this would be a new security force that would be half police/half military force, specifically created to be free of corruption and able to handle internal security issues. Specifically, things like the gas theft (it's been fascinating to read/hear about the PemEx gas theft issues he's been dealing with) and insane murder rates/cartels.

The specific point of the National Guard was to be new. Not saying there won't be trained soldiers/overlap. But it is supposed to be new. I've literally been reading about this stuff for months. That's why I made the points I made.

---

How weird. It's almost as if someone came along and suddenly got them to shift their priorities from internal security issues to emergency border control.

---

It's a token effort, though. And one they agreed to MONTHS AGO.

The big thing Trump wanted, was the safe 3rd Party country provision and Mexico told him to **** off.

Trump failed and he's claiming he won.

---

It's far from a token effort, which is why it's become so controversial in Mexico. 6,000 troops is equivalent to the entire police force of several of the larger provinces.

---

We can continue to argue that point. But what is beyond argument is that it WASNT the big thing Trump wanted. And it was agreed to months ago, prior to the Tariff threats.

---

The typical result of real negotiation is that neither side gets everything they want. And by Mexico's own account, it's simply not true that everything was decided months ago. The Remain in Mexico policy has been newly expanded, and the deployment of troops to the border has been newly prioritized.

---

You're describing free breadsticks.

---

That's your perspective as an American who was probably content with the catch and release policy. The Mexican perspective is somewhat different. El Universal ran an editorial this week calling it a major commitment and lamenting the high cost of appeasing the monster in the White House.

---

And the one thing Trump REALLY wanted was the safe 3rd country agreement and didn't get it. He could have ruined Mexico with the tariffs and backed off.

Why do YOU think he did that?

---

Assuming this was like most negotiations, he led with a high demand and backed off when he thought he'd gotten as much as he could. Pretty standard stuff.

---

Here's why that doesn't make sense. He already had the agreement in hand. Signed.

He re-opened negotiations insisting on THIS point. And he didn't get it. He didn't get any of it. You guys keep saying he got an agreement signed in blood, but honestly, there's no reason to believe that. There's no evidence Mexico was dragging their feet, either.

There IS evidence that he pushed Senate Republicans too far. Mike Grassley has continued to campaign to roll back Presidential trade powers as of yesterday.

---

They didn't get a safe third country agreement, but they got an expansion of Remain in Mexico and at least an acceleration of the national guard deployment. US and Mexican officials have both stated as much. If our Homeland Security Secretary is correct, it's a ten-fold increase in troop commitment to the southern border. This is all according to CNN.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

contrario said:

---

contrario said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

So, our President agreed to a deal where Mexico is sending "troops" from a National Guard that didn't exist before last Christmas, and you're claiming this as a win?

You deserve to be fooled.

---

They're arresting women and children traveling on foot. I don't think 30 months of Navy SEAL training is a prerequisite.

---

No one said it would take 30 months. But surely you realize it will take more than 6, right? It took over a year of planning for Nike to roll out our new uniform campaign.

You think creating an entire national guard infrastructure will go faster?

I mean, sure. Mexico is known for its efficient government and all...

---

I would get your point if Mexico didn't have an army at all, but it's not like they were starting from ground zero. Even the Washington Post is saying Mexico is sending its "new national guard" to the southern border this week. Are you ready to concede that you were wrong about Mexico not having a national guard, or are you going to argue against the reporting of the Washington Post as well?

---

BBL?

---

I'm really not making this up. As it is, these troops don't really exist. They're scrambling to get them there. The "National guard" is about as real as the Space Force.

This is a joke.

The National Guard that Trump is bragging about us 6,000 troops that haven deployed yet and won't for months.

---

I'm not sure how the Mexican military works, but I do know many well trained U.S servicemen join the National Guard or the Reserves after their active duty ends.

May be apples to oranges, but the U.S. would have no issue filling 6,000 spots and it wouldn't take anywhere close to 6 months.

The infrastructure may not be ready, but the already trained service members would be using the same system so it's nowhere near like starting from scratch.

---

That's a fair statement.

But the entire point of this Mexican National Guard -which was the brainchild of Obrador- was that this would be a new security force that would be half police/half military force, specifically created to be free of corruption and able to handle internal security issues. Specifically, things like the gas theft (it's been fascinating to read/hear about the PemEx gas theft issues he's been dealing with) and insane murder rates/cartels.

The specific point of the National Guard was to be new. Not saying there won't be trained soldiers/overlap. But it is supposed to be new. I've literally been reading about this stuff for months. That's why I made the points I made.

---

How weird. It's almost as if someone came along and suddenly got them to shift their priorities from internal security issues to emergency border control.

---

It's a token effort, though. And one they agreed to MONTHS AGO.

The big thing Trump wanted, was the safe 3rd Party country provision and Mexico told him to **** off.

Trump failed and he's claiming he won.

---

It's far from a token effort, which is why it's become so controversial in Mexico. 6,000 troops is equivalent to the entire police force of several of the larger provinces.

---

We can continue to argue that point. But what is beyond argument is that it WASNT the big thing Trump wanted. And it was agreed to months ago, prior to the Tariff threats.

---

The typical result of real negotiation is that neither side gets everything they want. And by Mexico's own account, it's simply not true that everything was decided months ago. The Remain in Mexico policy has been newly expanded, and the deployment of troops to the border has been newly prioritized.

---

You're describing free breadsticks.

---

That's your perspective as an American who was probably content with the catch and release policy. The Mexican perspective is somewhat different. El Universal ran an editorial this week calling it a major commitment and lamenting the high cost of appeasing the monster in the White House.

---

And the one thing Trump REALLY wanted was the safe 3rd country agreement and didn't get it. He could have ruined Mexico with the tariffs and backed off.

Why do YOU think he did that?

---

Assuming this was like most negotiations, he led with a high demand and backed off when he thought he'd gotten as much as he could. Pretty standard stuff.

---

Here's why that doesn't make sense. He already had the agreement in hand. Signed.

He re-opened negotiations insisting on THIS point. And he didn't get it. He didn't get any of it. You guys keep saying he got an agreement signed in blood, but honestly, there's no reason to believe that. There's no evidence Mexico was dragging their feet, either.

There IS evidence that he pushed Senate Republicans too far. Mike Grassley has continued to campaign to roll back Presidential trade powers as of yesterday.

---

They didn't get a safe third country agreement, but they got an expansion of Remain in Mexico and at least an acceleration of the national guard deployment. US and Mexican officials have both stated as much. If our Homeland Security Secretary is correct, it's a ten-fold increase in troop commitment to the southern border. This is all according to CNN.

---

Thats window-dressing, my dude. That's not substantial. It's so "nothing" even Trump hasn't bothered touting it. That's why he's selling the lie about agricultural products and the "secret deal" on a piece of paper.

Brooks, it's a net gain. How important depends on one's priorities. Trump is addressing a long neglected issue with little support from his own government, and other countries know this.

Quash, as a libertarian, are you highly pleased with the deal?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Brooks, it's a net gain. How important depends on one's priorities. Trump is addressing a long neglected issue with little support from his own government, and other countries know this.

Quash, as a libertarian, are you highly pleased with the deal?

---

Of course not. Trump is trying to use two states to **** up the natural flow of labor. And he's using taxes to do it. What is there to like for a libertarian?

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Brooks, it's a net gain. How important depends on one's priorities. Trump is addressing a long neglected issue with little support from his own government, and other countries know this.

Quash, as a libertarian, are you highly pleased with the deal?

---

Of course not. Trump is trying to use two states to **** up the natural flow of labor. And he's using taxes to do it. What is there to like for a libertarian?

---

The fact that it doesn't accomplish anything toward that goal, if indeed it is a fact. But I suspected you wouldn't quite see it that way.

Libertarian = dreamer of utopia, their own utopia, that can never exist

Total selfishness

= Quash

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Brooks, it's a net gain. How important depends on one's priorities. Trump is addressing a long neglected issue with little support from his own government, and other countries know this.

Quash, as a libertarian, are you highly pleased with the deal?

---

Of course not. Trump is trying to use two states to **** up the natural flow of labor. And he's using taxes to do it. What is there to like for a libertarian?

---

The fact that it doesn't accomplish anything toward that goal, if indeed it is a fact. But I suspected you wouldn't quite see it that way.

---

Is that what I'm left with, to be pleased that Trump is crowing about nothing? I would much rather see progress on immigration reform. Make America greater.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Brooks, it's a net gain. How important depends on one's priorities. Trump is addressing a long neglected issue with little support from his own government, and other countries know this.

Quash, as a libertarian, are you highly pleased with the deal?

---

Of course not. Trump is trying to use two states to **** up the natural flow of labor. And he's using taxes to do it. What is there to like for a libertarian?

---

The fact that it doesn't accomplish anything toward that goal, if indeed it is a fact. But I suspected you wouldn't quite see it that way.

---

Is that what I'm left with, to be pleased that Trump is crowing about nothing? I would much rather see progress on immigration reform. Make America greater.

---

Then ****ing blame the stonewalling Democrats quash!!!!!

You NEVER criticize them. Ever.

You lay blame on POTUS when you know for a fact that the entire establishment is against reform.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Brooks, it's a net gain. How important depends on one's priorities. Trump is addressing a long neglected issue with little support from his own government, and other countries know this.

Quash, as a libertarian, are you highly pleased with the deal?

---

Of course not. Trump is trying to use two states to **** up the natural flow of labor. And he's using taxes to do it. What is there to like for a libertarian?

---

The fact that it doesn't accomplish anything toward that goal, if indeed it is a fact. But I suspected you wouldn't quite see it that way.

---

Is that what I'm left with, to be pleased that Trump is crowing about nothing? I would much rather see progress on immigration reform. Make America greater.

---

Then ****ing blame the stonewalling Democrats quash!!!!!

You NEVER criticize them. Ever.

You lay blame on POTUS when you know for a fact that the entire establishment is against reform.

---

Quash has to be a Cinque sock based on above???

Florda_mike said:

---

Libertarian = dreamer of utopia, their own utopia, that can never exist

Total selfishness

= Quash

---

And legalized drugs (all kinds) for EVERYBODY.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Libertarian = dreamer of utopia, their own utopia, that can never exist

Total selfishness

= Quash

---

And legalized drugs (all kinds) for EVERYBODY.

---

Yep, I always forget about this angle of libertarians

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Brooks, it's a net gain. How important depends on one's priorities. Trump is addressing a long neglected issue with little support from his own government, and other countries know this.

Quash, as a libertarian, are you highly pleased with the deal?

---

Of course not. Trump is trying to use two states to **** up the natural flow of labor. And he's using taxes to do it. What is there to like for a libertarian?

---

The fact that it doesn't accomplish anything toward that goal, if indeed it is a fact. But I suspected you wouldn't quite see it that way.

---

Is that what I'm left with, to be pleased that Trump is crowing about nothing? I would much rather see progress on immigration reform. Make America greater.

---

Then ****ing blame the stonewalling Democrats quash!!!!!

You NEVER criticize them. Ever.

You lay blame on POTUS when you know for a fact that the entire establishment is against reform.

---

As I have said, and shown, repeatedly, I have no problem criticizing Dems.

But the subject here is a Trump lie. And you and Florda etc. are dodging like crazy.

To be even more specific, when the Senate took up immigration reform Sen. McConnell asked the president for his input. POTUS supported three different, contrary positions in less than two weeks. Disgusted, McConnell vowed not to revisit the topic.

You are right that the establishment is against reform. Trump is the establishment.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Brooks, it's a net gain. How important depends on one's priorities. Trump is addressing a long neglected issue with little support from his own government, and other countries know this.

Quash, as a libertarian, are you highly pleased with the deal?

---

Of course not. Trump is trying to use two states to **** up the natural flow of labor. And he's using taxes to do it. What is there to like for a libertarian?

---

The fact that it doesn't accomplish anything toward that goal, if indeed it is a fact. But I suspected you wouldn't quite see it that way.

---

Is that what I'm left with, to be pleased that Trump is crowing about nothing? I would much rather see progress on immigration reform. Make America greater.

---

Then ****ing blame the stonewalling Democrats quash!!!!!

You NEVER criticize them. Ever.

You lay blame on POTUS when you know for a fact that the entire establishment is against reform.

---

As I have said, and shown, repeatedly, I have no problem criticizing Dems.

But the subject here is a Trump lie. And you and Florda etc. are dodging like crazy.

To be even more specific, when the Senate took up immigration reform Sen. McConnell asked the president for his input. POTUS supported three different, contrary positions in less than two weeks. Disgusted, McConnell vowed not to revisit the topic.

You are right that the establishment is against reform. Trump is the establishment.

---

What did Trump lie about?

And since when do you care about lying? You don't talk about Benghazi, FISA abuse, Comey lying and leaking, DNC cheating Sanders, Pallets of laundered billions to IRAN...so pardon me if I suspect you're a dishonest POS.

Quit hiding behind this veil that you're neutral. You are suspect and nobody here believes a ******* word you say.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Brooks, it's a net gain. How important depends on one's priorities. Trump is addressing a long neglected issue with little support from his own government, and other countries know this.

Quash, as a libertarian, are you highly pleased with the deal?

---

Of course not. Trump is trying to use two states to **** up the natural flow of labor. And he's using taxes to do it. What is there to like for a libertarian?

---

The fact that it doesn't accomplish anything toward that goal, if indeed it is a fact. But I suspected you wouldn't quite see it that way.

---

Is that what I'm left with, to be pleased that Trump is crowing about nothing? I would much rather see progress on immigration reform. Make America greater.

---

Then ****ing blame the stonewalling Democrats quash!!!!!

You NEVER criticize them. Ever.

You lay blame on POTUS when you know for a fact that the entire establishment is against reform.

---

As I have said, and shown, repeatedly, I have no problem criticizing Dems.

But the subject here is a Trump lie. And you and Florda etc. are dodging like crazy.

To be even more specific, when the Senate took up immigration reform Sen. McConnell asked the president for his input. POTUS supported three different, contrary positions in less than two weeks. Disgusted, McConnell vowed not to revisit the topic.

You are right that the establishment is against reform. Trump is the establishment.

---

What did Trump lie about?

And since when do you care about lying? You don't talk about Benghazi, FISA abuse, Comey lying and leaking, DNC cheating Sanders, Pallets of laundered billions to IRAN...so pardon me if I suspect you're a dishonest POS.

Quit hiding behind this veil that you're neutral. You are suspect and nobody here believes a ******* word you say.

---

Bravo

Calling Quash exactly what he is

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Brooks, it's a net gain. How important depends on one's priorities. Trump is addressing a long neglected issue with little support from his own government, and other countries know this.

Quash, as a libertarian, are you highly pleased with the deal?

---

Of course not. Trump is trying to use two states to **** up the natural flow of labor. And he's using taxes to do it. What is there to like for a libertarian?

---

The fact that it doesn't accomplish anything toward that goal, if indeed it is a fact. But I suspected you wouldn't quite see it that way.

---

Is that what I'm left with, to be pleased that Trump is crowing about nothing? I would much rather see progress on immigration reform. Make America greater.

---

Then ****ing blame the stonewalling Democrats quash!!!!!

You NEVER criticize them. Ever.

You lay blame on POTUS when you know for a fact that the entire establishment is against reform.

---

As I have said, and shown, repeatedly, I have no problem criticizing Dems.

But the subject here is a Trump lie. And you and Florda etc. are dodging like crazy.

To be even more specific, when the Senate took up immigration reform Sen. McConnell asked the president for his input. POTUS supported three different, contrary positions in less than two weeks. Disgusted, McConnell vowed not to revisit the topic.

You are right that the establishment is against reform. Trump is the establishment.

---

What did Trump lie about?

And since when do you care about lying? You don't talk about Benghazi, FISA abuse, Comey lying and leaking, DNC cheating Sanders, Pallets of laundered billions to IRAN...so pardon me if I suspect you're a dishonest POS.

Quit hiding behind this veil that you're neutral. You are suspect and nobody here believes a ******* word you say.

---

For the umpteenth time: Trump claimed he had an agreement for LARGE ag purchases. I posted the tweet.

Now you post the proof.

Florda_mike said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Brooks, it's a net gain. How important depends on one's priorities. Trump is addressing a long neglected issue with little support from his own government, and other countries know this.

Quash, as a libertarian, are you highly pleased with the deal?

---

Of course not. Trump is trying to use two states to **** up the natural flow of labor. And he's using taxes to do it. What is there to like for a libertarian?

---

The fact that it doesn't accomplish anything toward that goal, if indeed it is a fact. But I suspected you wouldn't quite see it that way.

---

Is that what I'm left with, to be pleased that Trump is crowing about nothing? I would much rather see progress on immigration reform. Make America greater.

---

Then ****ing blame the stonewalling Democrats quash!!!!!

You NEVER criticize them. Ever.

You lay blame on POTUS when you know for a fact that the entire establishment is against reform.

---

As I have said, and shown, repeatedly, I have no problem criticizing Dems.

But the subject here is a Trump lie. And you and Florda etc. are dodging like crazy.

To be even more specific, when the Senate took up immigration reform Sen. McConnell asked the president for his input. POTUS supported three different, contrary positions in less than two weeks. Disgusted, McConnell vowed not to revisit the topic.

You are right that the establishment is against reform. Trump is the establishment.

---

What did Trump lie about?

And since when do you care about lying? You don't talk about Benghazi, FISA abuse, Comey lying and leaking, DNC cheating Sanders, Pallets of laundered billions to IRAN...so pardon me if I suspect you're a dishonest POS.

Quit hiding behind this veil that you're neutral. You are suspect and nobody here believes a ******* word you say.

---

Bravo

Calling Quash exactly what he is

---

Hi. Who here didn't attend Baylor?

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Brooks, it's a net gain. How important depends on one's priorities. Trump is addressing a long neglected issue with little support from his own government, and other countries know this.

Quash, as a libertarian, are you highly pleased with the deal?

---

Of course not. Trump is trying to use two states to **** up the natural flow of labor. And he's using taxes to do it. What is there to like for a libertarian?

---

The fact that it doesn't accomplish anything toward that goal, if indeed it is a fact. But I suspected you wouldn't quite see it that way.

---

Is that what I'm left with, to be pleased that Trump is crowing about nothing? I would much rather see progress on immigration reform. Make America greater.

---

Then ****ing blame the stonewalling Democrats quash!!!!!

You NEVER criticize them. Ever.

You lay blame on POTUS when you know for a fact that the entire establishment is against reform.

---

What? What immigration reform bills have Republicans put forward that Stephen Miller hasn't poison pill'd?

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Brooks, it's a net gain. How important depends on one's priorities. Trump is addressing a long neglected issue with little support from his own government, and other countries know this.

Quash, as a libertarian, are you highly pleased with the deal?

---

Of course not. Trump is trying to use two states to **** up the natural flow of labor. And he's using taxes to do it. What is there to like for a libertarian?

---

The fact that it doesn't accomplish anything toward that goal, if indeed it is a fact. But I suspected you wouldn't quite see it that way.

---

Is that what I'm left with, to be pleased that Trump is crowing about nothing? I would much rather see progress on immigration reform. Make America greater.

---

Then ****ing blame the stonewalling Democrats quash!!!!!

You NEVER criticize them. Ever.

You lay blame on POTUS when you know for a fact that the entire establishment is against reform.

---

As I have said, and shown, repeatedly, I have no problem criticizing Dems.

But the subject here is a Trump lie. And you and Florda etc. are dodging like crazy.

To be even more specific, when the Senate took up immigration reform Sen. McConnell asked the president for his input. POTUS supported three different, contrary positions in less than two weeks. Disgusted, McConnell vowed not to revisit the topic.

You are right that the establishment is against reform. Trump is the establishment.

---

What did Trump lie about?

And since when do you care about lying? You don't talk about Benghazi, FISA abuse, Comey lying and leaking, DNC cheating Sanders, Pallets of laundered billions to IRAN...so pardon me if I suspect you're a dishonest POS.

Quit hiding behind this veil that you're neutral. You are suspect and nobody here believes a ******* word you say.

---

Bravo

Calling Quash exactly what he is

---

Hi. Who here didn't attend Baylor?

---

There you go lying again and again

You cleverly use word "attend" instead of "graduated"

You guys are incapable of honesty

I know plenty that had a semester or semesters at Baylor then dropped out or transferred

They still love and worship Baylor though and want the best for it just like me

You could be one for all anyone here knows?

LMAO at your dishonesty again

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Brooks, it's a net gain. How important depends on one's priorities. Trump is addressing a long neglected issue with little support from his own government, and other countries know this.

Quash, as a libertarian, are you highly pleased with the deal?

---

Of course not. Trump is trying to use two states to **** up the natural flow of labor. And he's using taxes to do it. What is there to like for a libertarian?

---

The fact that it doesn't accomplish anything toward that goal, if indeed it is a fact. But I suspected you wouldn't quite see it that way.

---

Is that what I'm left with, to be pleased that Trump is crowing about nothing? I would much rather see progress on immigration reform. Make America greater.

---

Then ****ing blame the stonewalling Democrats quash!!!!!

You NEVER criticize them. Ever.

You lay blame on POTUS when you know for a fact that the entire establishment is against reform.

---

As I have said, and shown, repeatedly, I have no problem criticizing Dems.

But the subject here is a Trump lie. And you and Florda etc. are dodging like crazy.

To be even more specific, when the Senate took up immigration reform Sen. McConnell asked the president for his input. POTUS supported three different, contrary positions in less than two weeks. Disgusted, McConnell vowed not to revisit the topic.

You are right that the establishment is against reform. Trump is the establishment.

---

What did Trump lie about?

And since when do you care about lying? You don't talk about Benghazi, FISA abuse, Comey lying and leaking, DNC cheating Sanders, Pallets of laundered billions to IRAN...so pardon me if I suspect you're a dishonest POS.

Quit hiding behind this veil that you're neutral. You are suspect and nobody here believes a ******* word you say.

---

Bravo

Calling Quash exactly what he is

---

Hi. Who here didn't attend Baylor?

---

There you go lying again and again

You cleverly use word "attend" instead of "graduated"

You guys are incapable of honesty

I know plenty that had a semester or semesters at Baylor then dropped out or transferred

They still love and worship Baylor though and want the best for it just like me

You could be one for all anyone here knows?

LMAO at your dishonesty again

---

It doesn't matter to me whether it's attended or graduated, whatever helps you make your point.. You said half, who were you talking about?