Posted on 03/19/2017 9:43:42 AM PDT by Malone LaVeigh
WASHINGTON (AP) – at 12:15pm today President Trump disclosed that he has reached an agreement with Enrique Peña Nieto, President of Mexico, which provides for the sale of substantially all of the State of California to the country of Mexico. President Trump noted that this deal, which he claims “is his YUGEst real estate deal ever” is a win-win for everyone involved.
The two billionaires, who have clashed in the past, set aside their differences and negotiated the deal in which Mexico will pay for the wall, in exchange for the State of California.
(Excerpt) Read more at hallsofkarma.wordpress.com ...
Next time you’re in AZ, please find out what it’s going to take to get those people to throw McCain out of office. America thanks you.
I would like to reverse this thread and consider making Mexico into 40 or 50 more U.S. states. It could be done without military force. We would want to build a few more prisons, but the nice beaches, oil, etc...could be a win.
Mark, I like that idea.
The people of Mexico deserve better, and the prospects for improving the place and business flourishing as a result is promising.
As you stated the additional beach frontage would be amazing.
It’s a much more productive idea than surrendering to Mexico or some Aztlan fantasy.
Just ask Mexicans if they would like to be part if the U. S.
Last time I was there, long before the Election, I heard McCain on the Radio with some Phoenix On Air Talent.
If you didn’t know any better, you would swear you were listening to a Conservative like Ted Cruz or Jeff Sessions.
It was amazing. McCain was and is the biggest Bullshitter you could ever imagine.
Just suggesting this with a picture of a new American flag would cause them to build that wall to keep everyone from leaving.
the deal always collapses over who has to take San Francisco.
Mark, for the same reasons we have problems now, I would not support that.
Let them join, but put restrictions on movements at first.
Kids in school starting grade one, would be introduced to the U. S. curriculum, with an obvious and deserved nod to Mexico. There should be no denigration involved.
In twelve years you have a high school student body graduating being fully capable of working in Mexico or the U. S. Every person in the former Mexico section of the U. S. up to 18 years of age, would be well on the road to being one of us.
The average schooling in Mexico is something like the eighth grade today. That would increase dramatically. With a much more literate populace, Mexico itself would improve.
Investments from here would vastly improve life there. Tax receipts in the United States would take a leap. That could come later after some expanded outlays in the early years.
The population of the U. S. would have grown by 130-140 million, bringing us to around 500 million at that point.
That would translate to another 60-70 million workers.
As the education and opportunity level normalized between the two nations, travel access could expand. In time we would become one nation in every sense of the word.
As the former Mexican areas improved, other nations South of Mexico might like the idea of doing the same thing.
We could drive to Panama and never leave the U. S. within 20-40 years.
There would be problems to overcome. We would have to devise the progression so that our new states didn’t immediately become California, with all it’s current problems.
It might be interesting to see if folks in California would travel back home if it became a part of the U. S., with the same, and perhaps more opportunity to get in on the ground floor as the economy boomed down there.
Just “take over payments”
My point was not about shifting Trump votes around or,
whatever apparently you thought. It was that the
3.9 million of us who voted for Trump are neither
“effectively” Democrats nor illegals as you incorrectly
stated we are. Sure, you could say that our votes could
be put to better use somewhere else but that is no more
valid than saying that enough red voters from blue states
should be shipped to California to turn the state around.
Maybe you can help elect a better administration in Ciudad Mexico. That would benefit all of North America.
We cannot let San Diego harbor and SF Bay go. I agree that the Bay Area is a huge problem, but an independent coastal California would have the PLA Navy basing in SF Bay and San Diego within six months, which we could not allow.
I’ve got something here for you to elect.
Just a few million dollars to the “right” Mexicans. ;)
Not only am I a clamper ... I’m an X-Noble Grand Humbug ... now since I am and have been a clamper since 1987 I have a GREAT many friends in the brethren. Read carefully what I said ... give/sell LA and SF to Mexico ... the rest of Calif is salvageable. BTW among the several people I have “interviewed” as you put it ... were members of LSD3, Estanislao 58, Downieville 1849 and as I remember Bull Meek 10 ... now which chapters were you referring to ?
OH Jim ... I know that we are not going to let any of Calif go ... It’s all tongue in check stuff ... if only to let off some steam that has built up over Califs recent crap
Oh and one other added note ... I went up a few months ago to speak with members of the California militia in Sacramento Elk Grove ... That’s considered Gold Country is it not. It was their representative who said that there are only a “few” bad muslims and that they were letting “good” muslims into their militia. There was other stuff mentioned as well that I won’t repeat. I had someone with me that heard that too. We both shook our heads and pretty much ended the conversation.
First, Sacramento, Elk Grove, and San Francisco are not
part of the Gold Country regardless of their protestations.
Sacramento and San Francisco can be designated as service
areas to the Gold Country. Both communities were on the
wrong side of the Hungry Convention dispute therefore
they can not be considered as part of the Gold Country.
Second, after consideration, while believing that there
are only a “few” bad muslims should preclude one from
being considered a conservative, there is room in the
conservative tent to tolerate some patriotic American
Muslims. Where do you stand?
Third, if you are willing to say goodbye to your ECV
brethren in San Francisco then I’m not sure what kind
of brethren you Clampers are. I approve of splitting the
state. I support the Jefferson movement and I would
even support an east-west split. But carving out SF
and LA is not only illogical but it also offends all
principles of humor.
If you are already familiar with the Hungry Convention
then you know my location or close enough to it.
Where do I stand ? ... patriotic American Muslims ... no such thing ... Their death cult is anti-constitution and therefore anti_American If you believe otherwise ... you are exactly who I was talking about earlier.
Really? The nephew of a muslim I knew in college was also
a muslim who was among the American soldiers killed in
Iraq. He had a brother who also served in the US armed
forces.
The difference between you and me is that I am a redneck
confident enough in myself not to have to play kiddie
games like ‘which of us is the most extreme right winger?’
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.