Every Democrat that brings their pet illegal with them to protests, fundrausers, etc., should be charged with treason.
If Russia was on our southern border and was sending millions of poor Democrat voters into the United States you can bet that the Democrats wouldn’t be taking about them that way. Why, the would be calling their children the “dreamers”. LOL
Bottom line is that free speech is free speech, anyone can post any point of view about American presidential candidates, the fact that some are posted to influence the outcome is really not the point, the point is whether or not the voting public has enough time and enough access to facts to make an informed decision.
I find it ridiculous that anyone is even discussing internet troll contributions when, in plain sight, is the obvious fact that criminal acts by the other candidate were never fully explored or discussed, and that’s a failure not of the internet but of the mainstream media who refused their responsibility.
If they don’t want to do their job, they should hardly start complaining if a few internet trolls do some kind of a job and influence a couple of hundred votes, when by errors of omission, they influence millions. How would HRC have won the popular vote if it had been widely reported what facts very likely exist about her activities especially in relation to access for money and the Haiti business?
But as to Mexican trolls, probably quite a few, but preaching to the choir mainly, as would be any Russian pro-Trump trolls. This is what makes the whole thing difficult to judge, what impact does it have when extra voices are heard saying the same thing as millions of legitimate voices have already said in the election discussion?