tuscl

AMLO wins Mexico

mark94
Arizona
Monday, July 2, 2018 3:36 AM
For those of us on the border, the landslide election of a self-avowed Marxist as President of Mexico could have a big impact. Here is his platform ♦Amnesty to all drug cartels. ♦No longer will work with U.S. immigration enforcement. ♦Nationalize oil industry. ♦Farm subsidies. ♦Elimination of multinational corporate influence on farming. ♦Support and assistance for economic growth plan: using •mass migration of Mexican nationals into Southern U.S., •create AmeriMex border region, and •remittance of earnings back to Mexico as initiative for rapid domestic economic growth. This has parallels to what happened in Venezuala. We are seeing how well that worked out.

64 comments

  • tijuana_tim
    •
    6 years ago
    I sent him some goats instead of hot prostitutes for his victory party if that tells you anything.
  • etsutwigg222
    •
    6 years ago
    NEED TO BUILD THAT WALL FOR SURE PLYS SEND MIRE TROOPS TO BORDER.
  • TheeOSU
    •
    6 years ago
    Give him a couple years and Mexico will be circling the drain.
  • Dblednmike
    •
    6 years ago
    I thought thier oil industry was already nationalized.... I LOVE going down to TJ (sorry Tim, I favor the two legged, female companionship) but I might take a little vacation from going down just to see what direction things go.
  • Warrior15
    •
    6 years ago
    Just please don't mess around with Zona Norte. Please, please, please !!!
  • tijuana_tim
    •
    6 years ago
    Ddledmike, I like 2 legged females too! I have many hot ones. San Jose Guy started the trend on loving goats, and I gotta go where the money is.
  • mark94
    •
    6 years ago
    In Venezuala, they nationalized the oil industry and gave away free stuff. That worked for a few years, but the real economy died off. When the oil money was gone, there was no money or jobs or food. The only option for the people is to flood the refugee camps in Colombia. Start building tent cities on the border and notify the National Guard. I give it 3 years.
  • rickdugan
    •
    6 years ago
    Sure, because all of that worked out so well for Venezualea, Cuba, Russia, Zimbabwe....oh, wait a minute....may not so well... It's all about power. if you take a way a populations economic freedoms and make them dependent upon the government, then the power of the state leaders grows. They already have gun control laws much stricter than those here, but I have no doubt that further restrictions are on the way. Sadly, we have a Dem party here that is increasingly eager to try to put on on that same path. And, like in Mexico, a % of our population is too uneducated and/or too naive to understand where that path eventually leads.
  • shadowcat
    •
    6 years ago
    Margaret Thatcher once said that "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
  • IceyLoco
    •
    6 years ago
    AMLO is the best thing to ever happen to Mexico. My mom sat at the tv crying watching the election coverage. She couldnt believe it finally happened! I was hoping Mexico would beat Brazil today to make it a double victory but Ill take AMLO over the world cup!
  • IceyLoco
    •
    6 years ago
    we were both born here
  • skibum609
    •
    6 years ago
    It is time to close the southern border completely; end Nafta and stiffen the entry requirements for all vehicles coming in from Mexico.
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    6 years ago
    @PhatBoy99, What finally happened? You mean a leftist won the Mexican presidency? It's not exactly the first time. Where were you for, like, the first 90 years of the 20th century?
  • twentyfive
    •
    6 years ago
    Why should I care who the Mexicans elect, I’m an American I care who we elect, it’s none of my business who they elect, bunch of fucking idiots.
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    6 years ago
    @twentyfive, What he's trying to say is that people who live in a border state should be worried because Obrador's stupid domestic policies will destroy the Mexican economy and therefore encourage a surge of border crossings into America... and everyone knows that Mexican farm workers are scary people. There's just no telling what they'll do next. I mean, they may pick twice as many oranges for half the price and then there'll be no stopping them. What's next? Lettuce? Avocados? Peaches? Strawberries? Where does this carnage end, people?! He didn't mention it but he's also concerned that Mexicans come to the US to collect welfare. The argument is incoherent. If Mexicans just want welfare, then why don't they just stay home in Mexico and collect welfare? Surely a Marxist president will hand out tons of welfare, right? So then why would they come to America at all? At some point people are going to have to acknowledge that these migrants are mostly coming to look for work. And then we can finally have an honest conversation about immigration.
  • IceyLoco
    •
    6 years ago
    Its gona have a huge impact on the US. but then you arent the smartest one here
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    6 years ago
    @PhatBoy99, Who isn't the smartest one here?
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    6 years ago
    Venezuala has no history of democracy. I am excited about the victory of Lopez Obrador and MORENA. I am interested to see what happens, and I make no claims to know. Mark94's list is interesting. Some say that this victory is a bit like Trump in that it is populist and breaks out of the existing box. But this is from the Left. So I am very excited to learn more about this. Mexican Politics thread: [view link] SJG
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    6 years ago
    Traditionally lots of corruption in Latin America thus a leftist "for the people/poor" gov looks appealing "on paper" - but history says the "cure" is usually worst than the disease
  • twentyfive
    •
    6 years ago
    @BHF that’s their problem not mine, my problem is with these fake Republican spendthrifts and the nanny state they’re trying to creat. In the past the Rs were the guys trying to curb spending, institute sound fiscal policy, not these fake spendthrifts running up a Trillion dollar deficit in his first year let alone his first term. I say leave the social policy alone let the people deal with them, get spending back on track stop trying to fuck up our economy with this tariff bullshit, and shut the fuck up.
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    6 years ago
    ^^^^ Ronald Reagan was the one who really went into deficit spending, not Jimmy Carter. And this type of deficit spending done with progressive tax code gutting, is what has led to the huge inflation of the real estate and stock markers. These markets are the Ultimate Government Entitlement Programs. And Trump and the Republicans today are using this big time. America What Went Wrong: [view link] SJG Blazing Star OTO [view link]
  • twentyfive
    •
    6 years ago
    Just Now ^Why don’t you shut the fuck up 20,000 fucking posts yet not a single new idea. You are a gigantic bore.
  • IceyLoco
    •
    6 years ago
    San Jose Guy is schooling all of you
  • twentyfive
    •
    6 years ago
    ^Todavía mojado detrás de las orejas y él sabe quién es la escuela que
  • RedJohnson
    •
    6 years ago
    ^él es un idiota en dos idiomas
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    6 years ago
    un revolucionario natural, en dos idiomas SJG Blazing Star OTO [view link]
  • mark94
    •
    6 years ago
    In the last 6 months, about 500,000 Venezuelans have crossed the border into Colombia, seeking refuge ( not all have registered as refugees ).A large number have also crossed into Brazil and other countries. That’s from a country of 30,000,000. The Colombian border towns are overwhelmed. Huge camps have been established Mexico’s population is 4 times the size of Venezuela. And, when the Mexican economy comes crashing down as a result of Socialism, they will only have one place to go, the American border states. If it follows the pattern of Venezuela, there will be millions of starving Mexicans surging into the US. BHF says they will all pick lettuce and contribute to our economy. Right........
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    6 years ago
    Problem is not in Mexico, its in the US, a society being cannibalized to try and keep Capitalism going. SJG
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    6 years ago
    @mark94, Mexico has a long and sad history of sucking economically. Shit hits the fan almost once per decade in Mexico: [view link] And, yes, the Mexican people often respond to economic problems by fleeing to the US. But I don't see where waves of Mexican migrants have transformed the United States into a flaming hellscape. I don't doubt that the idiot they just elected will make things worse. But it's nothing that we haven't seen in Mexico before. There's already plenty of socialism and central planning in Mexico. And it's a country with a lot of official corruption and where the government doesn't respect property rights, plus it's the frontline in the global War on Drugs. So it's not a nice place to live. But let's just say you're right. You're concerned about Mexican immigrants and you're also concerned about trade with Mexico. So which one would you prefer? We can either buy things from Mexico or we can pay Mexicans to make things here in the US. That's basically our choice. Their economy will probably suffer under socialism, but imagine how much worse the Mexican economy would become if we also pull out of Nafta and apply tariffs to their exports, too. As you point out, when their economy collapses they will flee to the north. If we don't let them do it legally, they will continue to do it illegally. I should also point out that the net effect of Mexican socialism would be to make their products more expensive to produce, which means they will sell less to us than they otherwise would. And Obrador has been critical of Nafta at times, and he's even endorsed renegotiating it at times on the campaign trail. So I would think you would actually be happy with this dismal outcome.
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    6 years ago
    The people vote to elect a president and his party. But the Far Right ( also known as Libertarians ) lines up to tell the people that they are wrong. SJG
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    6 years ago
    @san_jose_guy, Didn't you "line up" to tell people that they were wrong to elect Trump? Or Bush? Or Reagan?
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    6 years ago
    You got it, mostly G. W. Bush, but not so much his father, and also Nixon too, and about Barry Goldwater. But I was not making an argument that the economy would collapse. I was not trying to say as you guys are that the economy depends upon right wing policies, or on left wing policies. I was saying that these Republicans were just wrong in what they were trying to do, and that long term their polices were also very destructive. So I could not care less what the stock market does, or even the unemployment rate. There are far more serious matters at stake. SJG
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    6 years ago
    Keynesianism works better than Laissez-faire. But with the rise of Reagan and Thatcher, the issue is that Keynesianism also works better than Neoliberalism. Keynesianism is actually a very moderate doctrine. It has never failed, it worked extremely well for a very long time. But its just that it has been partially rejected because some people believe in Social Darwinism. Now Mexico is not the US. In many ways it is already further to the Institutional Left than the US ever has been. So the issue here is what kind of alternative to Neoliberalism will AMLO offer? I do not know the answer, but I do want to learn more. SJG
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    6 years ago
    @san_jose_guy, There's too much to respond to, so I'll narrow it down to three things. First, if you're making the claim that right-wing polices are destructive, then you ARE saying that the economy depends on left-wing polices. Second, didn't Nixon famously say that he's a Keynesian, too? And third, do you really believe that the performance of the Mexican economy has nothing to do with its failed government policies? Mexico was poor long before Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were elected, long before Vicente Fox and Ernesto Zedillo were elected, long before people even invented the word "neoliberalism."
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    6 years ago
    1. Keynesianism is not Left Wing, it is moderate, saving capitalism from itself. The Reagan etal policies have all but destroyed this country, canibalizing our society to save Capitalism. 2. Don't remember that specific Nixon statement, but it is completely true. Nixon did not do bad economic stuff. Nixon did bad stuff in extending the War in Vietnam and opposing the Civil Rights Movement, and then as VP, in bringing in to this country Nazi holocaust perpetrators. He also kept this underground arm of the Republican Party going, and he pursued his Southern Strategy paying on racism. 3. No I don't think Mexico has some sort of "economic performance problem" Industrialization and neoliberalism is not a good path to follow. Fortunately, not every country has ever tried to follow it. SJG
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    6 years ago
    [view link] written about time spent in Guaymas around 1970. Mexico is a traditional society, people have not fully adapted to middle-class thinking. Mexico does not have people who are homeless or who only eat via religious charity. Not really having unemployment either. Rather, it is the US and the other industrialized nations which have these things. SJG
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    6 years ago
    @san_jose_guy, 1) If you say so. My point is that you're making the claim that the performance of the economy depends on whether or not we enact *your* policies, in this case Keynesianism. 2) [view link] 3) Once again, if you say so. If you honestly believe that Mexico's economy is strong... oh, forget it! How about this: Keynesianism requires that you cut taxes during a recession. That's exactly what George W. Bush did. Do you support this? Because if not then you're not a Keynesian. Period.
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    6 years ago
    Keynesianism, short of Socialism, is the only thing which saves Capitalism from itself. If you want boom and bust and people with great wealth and power while others have nothing, Capitalism is your program. Mexico's economy is stable, more stable than the US economy by far. Cutting taxes during a recession is one of the things Keynesianism allows for, but it is not an absolute requirement. But it is better to cut them at the very bottom, even going below the threshold where one would have to pay taxes, ie in social programs and hand outs. When Keynes wrote, we did not have as huge of a labor surplus as we do now. The situation today is more extreme than anything Keynes faced. SJG
  • twentyfive
    •
    6 years ago
    ^This is like a stupid side bar, but I digress !
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    6 years ago
    Capitalism, Neoliberalism, its all a fraud. Exposing this is the difference between oblivion and paradise on earth. SJG
  • mark94
    •
    6 years ago
    “We can either buy things from Mexico or we can pay Mexicans to make things here in the US. That's basically our choice.” That’s a false choice. We can buy things from Mexico under a fair trade arrangement. That’s a third, and preferred, choice. Even better, Mexico can purge its corrupt government and police, eradicate drug cartels, stop allowing Central Americans to transit through their country, stop embracing socialism, and stop the transit of Chinese goods under NAFTA. As a libertarian, you should recognize it is not our job to fix Mexico. NAFTA subsidizes the Mexican economy to make up for its corruption and flawed economic model. Funny how, when you reward a behavior, you get more of that behavior.
  • mark94
    •
    6 years ago
    Remember when China joined the WTO ? Everyone said that the increased wealth would allow China to end its practice of crushing civil liberties, stealing intellectual property, bullying its regional neighbors, and practicing illegal trade. That hasn’t worked. Or, when we shipped palates of cash to Iran, in hopes they would honor their promise to behave in the future ? Well, we tried NAFTA, hoping that increased wealth would fix Mexico. What happened instead ? A Socialist wins in a landslide. Instead of subsidizing these corrupt states, I dunno, maybe we try penalizing their bad behavior. There’s a radical concept.
  • twentyfive
    •
    6 years ago
    ^^Gee Mark we don’t have any government corruption here, that stupider than fuck.
  • mark94
    •
    6 years ago
    Here’s an interesting article that posits that Mexicans voted for AMLO not because he was socialist but because he was the only viable candidate who wasn’t a member of the corrupt large parties. If true, I find that encouraging. [view link]
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    6 years ago
    "As a libertarian, you should recognize it is not our job to fix Mexico." That's right. Attempting to force them to lower their trade barriers would be our attempt to "fix" Mexico. And it isn't our business. We can ask them. We can try rational persuasion. We can show them how much damage protectionism causes to their domestic economy. But we shouldn't try to force them. Because at the end of the day it's their problem. Not ours. Trump's tariffs on the other hand are our problem. Besides, when I buy something I don't think about whether the store owner beats his wife, kicks his dog, and votes for Hillary Clinton. I think about how low his prices are. And that's the essence of free trade. "NAFTA subsidizes the Mexican economy to make up for its corruption and flawed economic model." No it doesn't. Trade itself is not a subsidy. Nafta allows some domestic subsidies, but certainly not more than the pre-existing amount. Mexico has some subsidies, so does Canada, and so do we. "Well, we tried NAFTA, hoping that increased wealth would fix Mexico." No we didn't. We tried Nafta to help ourselves and it worked. The fact that Mexico and Canada also benefited is just an added perk, which is to be expected from trade liberalization: everyone wins somewhat. Do you honestly believe that Nafta makes trade LESS free than before? "Instead of subsidizing these corrupt states, I dunno, maybe we try penalizing their bad behavior. There’s a radical concept." Penalizing bad behavior is the very definition of trying to "fix" Mexico, and I'm not interested in doing so. But you're right, that would be a radical concept.
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    6 years ago
    "Mexicans voted for AMLO not because he was socialist but because he was the only viable candidate who wasn’t a member of the corrupt large parties. If true, I find that encouraging." You think that's encouraging? So just to be clear, you think that socialism is preferable to the Establishment? If so, I can't agree with you there. I understand that Pena Nieto was basically a moderate socialist himself, and I don't like him. But I also don't agree with this "argument from authority" feedback loop that claims that everything the establishment does is automatically bad because they're the ones in charge, while everything the insurgency does is automatically good because they're not the establishment. During the Tea Party uprising, we opposed the Establishment because we didn't agree with their policies, not merely because they were the guys in charge. Here's a question for you. Let's say Jeb Bush had won the GOP nomination in 2016. It doesn't get more establishment than that, right? And let's say that Bernie Sanders had won the Democratic nomination that year. Would you really have voted for Sanders just to spite the establishment? Because that's basically what you're saying the Mexican voters did. Unless you're saying it's really about corruption. If so, I still can't agree with you. Crony capitalism is really bad, but it's not as bad as socialism. Besides, socialism itself should be seen as just another form of corruption.
  • mark94
    •
    6 years ago
    I think you misunderstand me. I’m not saying socialism is preferable. I’m saying the electorate is voting against corruption, not for socialism. So, the new President will succeed if he wipes out corruption. If he tries to make Mexico a socialist paradise, they will throw him out next time around.
  • twentyfive
    •
    6 years ago
    ^Fuck this whole train of thought, do you think Donald Trump had a snowballs chance in hell if he had run outside any of the establishment parties. You guys are talking out of your ass, In order to win the nomination Trump engineered a takeover of the Republican Party, the United States is not Mexico never was and never will be, guys like Mark94 are idiots and you BHF are feeding him. #[view link].
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    6 years ago
    Advancing democracy is a world wide project. No country can do it by itself. The Mexican people had voted for PAN, to end corruption, and maybe because some like other aspects of their agenda. Today they voted for a leftist party, to end corruption, but also because some do want to move in the direction of socialism. PRI is a somewhat socialist party, but it is also corrupt. What was the verdict on Enriche Pena Nieto, how did he do? SJG
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    6 years ago
    Mexico’s Leftist President-elect AMLO Promises Sweeping Changes on Corruption, Poverty, Drug War [view link] SJG Symbolic Dimensions of the Gnostic Mass [view link]
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    6 years ago
    "If he tries to make Mexico a socialist paradise, they will throw him out next time around." Maybe, but for now I'm skeptical. The Mexican people have a long history of voting for government interventions in the marketplace - much like other people throughout history all over the world. When people are unhappy, they vote against the incumbent, but they don't seem to understand exactly what's making them unhappy at the moment. In other words, they may just end up voting for more of the same problem. Not to change the subject, but I should point out that I don't believe there's anything unique about Mexicans supporting socialism. You once said that you were concerned that Hispanic immigrants would vote for more welfare - and you were absolutely right. BUT other groups seem to support welfare programs, too, both in America and around the world, to varying degrees. Blacks, gays, Jews, Muslims, women, men, the native-born, the foreign-born, the poor, the middle-income, the rich, the uneducated, the well-educated, the Democrats, the Republicans, the independents, the British, the Germans, the French, the Greeks, the Canadians, the Japanese, etc. It is a mental disease that afflicts all of humanity, not just Hispanics. Want proof? Well, the biggest entitlement programs in the US and in most European nations were all implemented by overwhelmingly white electorates (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, The National Health Service, etc.). I think the only solution is to curb democracy and to curb government power, not to curb immigration. But just out of curiosity, you didn't answer my question: who would you have voted for, Jeb Bush or Bernie Sanders?
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    6 years ago
    Socialism works just fine, when people want it to work. There can be a socialist paradise, if that is what people want. But if people want economic stratification and get angry when they see it is not going that way, then they will reject the socialist leaders. It is not altruism which is required, but it is a vision of collective benefit which people must share in and support. So I am watching with baited breath. Long Live Mexico and Long Live AMLO! And the biggest entitlement programs in the United States are the inflated real estate and stock markets. SJG
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    6 years ago
    Just heard on the late-night Univision Spanish news broadcast that the new president plans to end the $120,000/yr pension ex-presidents receive
  • mark94
    •
    6 years ago
    $120,000 per year is chump change compared to the millions that every ex-president of Mexico socked away in off shore accounts. But, ending it is a start. I remember when Mexico tried to raise the salaries of cops so they didn’t need to seek bribes to earn a living. I have the impression that didn’t work.
  • mark94
    •
    6 years ago
    According to the article, Mexicans were voting for someone outside the major parties who would end corruption. Bernie was running as a candidate of a major party and ending corruption wasn’t a major plank, at least it wasn’t perceived as such. The analogy doesn’t hold. A better analogy would be for an outsider who promised to “ drain the swamp” as a major plank while taking on the elites who controlled his party.
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    6 years ago
    I didn't say Bernie Sanders was running against corruption. It wasn't really an analogy. I was just asking about a hypothetical scenario in which Jeb Bush and Bernie Sanders had won their respective primaries. My guess is that you would have voted for Sanders against Bush. Because I think that your distaste for the establishment would lead you (and people like you) to support some pretty crazy things and some pretty crazy people. It's just my theory.
  • mark94
    •
    6 years ago
    We are close, very close, to reaching an agreement in principle for a trade agreement with Mexico. Once done, the same agreement will be offered to Canada on a “ take it or leave it”. At that point, the Canadians are pretty much screwed. Here’s background from [view link] Remember, with Canada joining the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), the issues of the NAFTA fatal flaw expand exponentially. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) would now be able to exploit partner Canada as a gateway into the U.S. market. POTUS Trump is having nothing to do with that nonsense. In the big picture AMLO wants to advance the Mexican manufacturing base; expand the aggregate economic base; and also stop the corporate exploitation of the Mexican farm worker. In these objectives U.S. President Trump is more than willing to be a partner with President Lopez Obrador. Heck, President Trump would actually love to assist AMLO on that agenda; it is mutually beneficial. Diametrically, Justin from Canada has doubled-down on the retention of the fatal flaw and does not want an expanded domestic manufacturing base. The enviro-nuts of his base just will not support it and a carbon tax looms on the horizon. As a consequence, Canada is loggerheads with the United States because Canada is demanding to retain their NAFTA access to the U.S. market, and simultaneously retain their ability to broker imported Chinese/ASEAN goods.
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    6 years ago
    You would prefer to work with an actual Marxist like AMLO rather than a standard-issue post-war liberal like Trudeau? I guess we can mark the calendars. 2016 was the year that the American conservative movement decided that every American should have a constitutional right to a high-wage manufacturing job.
  • Countryman5434
    •
    6 years ago
    @ warrior15 i agree please leave the zona norte alone!
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    6 years ago
    Be very happy with AMLO or Trudeau. Marxism, just like Keynesianism, it works if people want it to work. SJG
  • Unite_the_Right
    •
    6 years ago
    Great thread from a 100% red-blooded American patriot. Looking forward to meeting up on the 12th!
  • mark94
    •
    6 years ago
    With today’s announcement from President Trump, all is progressing as I predicted. We have a bilateral trade deal with Mexico with much more favorable terms for the US. It also benefits Mexico by encouraging local content. Who is the big loser ? China, which will no longer be able to use Mexico to flood the US with cheap goods using stolen technology. Next, we’ll show the agreement to Canada and essentially say “ take it or leave it”. It will result in true free trade between the US, Mexico, and Canada. Lower tariffs. Reduced barriers. No more China interference. Tired of winning yet ?
  • mark94
    •
    6 years ago
    The U.S. and Mexico have agreed to manufacturing origination terms; wage and labor improvements; elimination of AG subsidies and non tariff barriers; and removal of all protectionist tariffs – so long as the structural terms of commerce are upheld. In order for Canada to join the U.S. Mexico deal they would need to: (1) eliminate soft-wood subsidies in the lumber sector; (2) eliminate protectionist tariffs in the AG (Dairy) sector; (3) accept the 75% rules of origin, eliminating the NAFTA loophole; (4) agree to the enforcement mechanisms for all the above; (5) allow U.S. banks to operate in Canada (financial sector). Each of these five issues, now locked-in and agreed by the U.S. and Mexico are “take-it-or-leave-it” terms for Canada to join. There’s almost no-way, given the politicization of the Canadian plan, for Justin and Chrystia to agree to those terms and keep their fragmented political support base appeased. Therefore, absent total acquiescence, it is likely Canada will keep their soft-wood lumber subsidies, keep their protectionist Dairy tariffs, keep their banking rules blocking U.S. access, and face a 25% duty on U.S. auto imports – effectively destroying their auto manufacturing sector. Car companies (ex. Toyota) will simply leave Canada and return to building/assembling in the U.S.
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    6 years ago
    So it sounds like you like the Leftist AMLO. I certainly do. SJG
You must be a member to leave a comment.Join Now
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion