It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Legislators in Mexico City are asking the federal government to ban Donald Trump from entering the country, citing the GOP presidential hopeful’s repeated anti-Mexican comments.
The proposal passed unanimously on Wednesday, according to Deputy José Manuel Delgadillo of the conservative National Action Party. He described the document, known as a "point of agreement," as a largely symbolic recommendation to the federal government that the local legislature lacked the ability to enforce.
But he told The WorldPost that Mexico City legislators felt the need to prod President Enrique Peña Nieto to confront Trump, whom they view as a hyper-nationalist who has kindled anti-Mexican resentment by describing Mexicans in broad terms as "rapists" and calling for the construction of a wall across the length of the U.S.-Mexico border.
"What we're saying is that if he wants to build a wall so that Mexicans can't enter his country, then he is not welcome in our country," Delgadillo told WorldPost. "What we need now is for President Peña Nieto to make a strong statement condemning Mr. Trump's anti-Mexican comments."
Deputy Víctor Hugo Romo of the leftwing Revolutionary Democratic Party, which introduced the point of agreement, referred to Trump as “primeval, egocentric and primitive,” before going on to compare Trump to Hitler in public remarks Wednesday, according to MSV Noticias.
“Hitler was very popular,” Romo said. “He generated a lot of sympathy by adopting nationalist politics that vindicated the Germans’ sense of self-worth. [Trump] is practically a copy. I consider Donald Trump a chauvinist, a misogynist who fosters and leans towards toward repression. … He doesn’t respect diversity.”
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Krazysh0t
If they really did not want the guy to win they would stop talking about him.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I find it sad that no amount of logical appeal can convince people of him being a disaster. Maybe I give our citizenry's intelligence too much credit.
But I guess when his whole thing is to appeal to the lowest common denominator intelligence-wise, you aren't going to get a lot of hope there.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
At least with Clinton you know what you are getting. The Donald's only consistency is that he'll say what you want to hear and be an asshole about everything. It certainly isn't conservative values though.
originally posted by: EightTF3
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
At least with Clinton you know what you are getting. The Donald's only consistency is that he'll say what you want to hear and be an asshole about everything. It certainly isn't conservative values though.
Somebody who's going to vote for Clinton trashing any other candidate for "Telling you what you want to hear" is classic.
Also Hillary's famous consistency! Unless you're referring to her self interest I gotta disagree.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
At least with Clinton you know what you are getting. The Donald's only consistency is that he'll say what you want to hear and be an asshole about everything. It certainly isn't conservative values though.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: EightTF3
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
At least with Clinton you know what you are getting. The Donald's only consistency is that he'll say what you want to hear and be an asshole about everything. It certainly isn't conservative values though.
Somebody who's going to vote for Clinton trashing any other candidate for "Telling you what you want to hear" is classic.
Also Hillary's famous consistency! Unless you're referring to her self interest I gotta disagree.
I don't know what this has to do with Mexico wanting to ban Trump from their country. Why are the Trump supporters attacking me instead of discussing the article?