Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Darminus2k t1_jdq2zoi wrote

Great priority for the Mexican government to have

513

Key-Cry-8570 t1_jdst1p7 wrote

Seeing gunman running towards gonna break a lot of world records.

94

TinKicker t1_jdtepq4 wrote

Taking a page right out of The Kentucky Fried Movie.

1

Celtictussle t1_jdr9flf wrote

The thrill of watching world records escape with no fear of being shattered as athletes struggle for their lives at Mexico City's 7000 foot altitude.

225

castaneom t1_jdssxzi wrote

They didn’t say where it would be hosted. Most likely Monterrey or Guadalajara.

40

Celtictussle t1_jdsy152 wrote

Yeah but my joke works better if we assume Mexico City.

90

Arrg-ima-pirate t1_jdtxlfl wrote

They’re going to host it in Sinaloa, and El Chapo’s kids are going to fund the stadiums construction.

5

Shoot_from_the_Quip t1_jdskjxw wrote

And some of the worst air quality imaginable... perfect for elite athletes /s

33

lionheart4life t1_jdtcw0k wrote

They survived Beijing.

22

NFsG t1_jdtlpb4 wrote

China shut down all the factories - during the Olympics they had clear skies.

18

thebruns t1_jdt9ohm wrote

This comment is like 30 years out of date

−1

Shoot_from_the_Quip t1_jdtbjc3 wrote

Literally today the air quality is unhealthful and particulates are at 7.5x the air quality guideline value

6

thebruns t1_jdti51p wrote

Your same link shows dozens of cities are significantly worse meaning it is nowhere near the worst air quality imaginable.

Beijing was hitting 400 in the run up to their Olympics.

−2

Shoot_from_the_Quip t1_jdtjlcz wrote

Yes, but it is entirely possible for more than one city to have poor air quality at the same time. Not being the worst doesn't make a bad one any better.

China was an interesting case. Beijing is a communist country and they were able to absolutely shut things down hard for the Olympics to reduce pollution. When the games were over it went right back up to their usual horrible levels.

Interestingly, there was a study done about the effects of the sudden drop in pollution on residents and their metabolite levels before and after.

2

thebruns t1_jdtnmp0 wrote

> Not being the worst doesn't make a bad one any better.

Except this is what you said:

>worst air quality imaginable

If there are dozens of cities with worse air quality, than it is very easy to imagine worse air quality.

Next time, simply don't lie.

−2

plomautus t1_jdumapk wrote

Did you just conveniently forget to include the "Some" word before worst air quality?

2

Shoot_from_the_Quip t1_jdtvap2 wrote

Nice cherry picking, and with intentional omission, no less. You should get into politics.

I said, "SOME of the worst air quality imaginable."

Next time, simply don't alter a quote to give yourself a non-issue to respond to.

1

yoloismymiddlename t1_jdu7cp8 wrote

Mexico has already hosted the Olympics… in 1968. And they have the infrastructure to support it. Maybe they could expand public transportation but the stadiums for the soccer teams are generally new, in the process of being built, or will be completely renewed by that time.

I think this is something that wouldn’t be a huge problem to host in a city like Monterrey, Mexico City, or Guadalajara. It would most likely be in Monterrey though.

2

Loggerdon t1_jdufmg1 wrote

I knew a guy named Sasha who was a rower for the Polish team. He at the 1968 Mexico City Games when they killed all those Israeli athletes. He was in the building across and could see right into the window where they were.

That said I thought the US, Canada and Mexico were supposed to apply together? They would not build new but would use existing stadiums (8 in the US, 4 in Mexico and 2 in Canada?, or something like that?)

1

Noirradnod t1_jdz7wql wrote

That was in Munich in 1972, not Mexico City in 1968.

2

Loggerdon t1_jdz83vh wrote

Whoops you are right. Sasha competed in 3 Olympics, including Munich (and Mexico City). When I knew him he was almost 70 and still had a back that was like a "V" (like a muscle man).

1

kevinhuynh95 t1_jdqlx57 wrote

More Tourist and Athletes the cartel can kidnap

116

Anerky t1_jdsnil9 wrote

The cartel doesn’t mess with tourists or famous people. They know that their money comes from tourism. The resort areas therefore are the safest areas in all of Mexico and the cartel will scare off any petty crime

53

Player72 t1_jdszjc3 wrote

so they “protect” the tourist areas then? sorta?

12

Anerky t1_jdt1h6i wrote

Yep. The only times people really get killed or anything in the touristy areas they’re typically already having wronged the cartels. Otherwise the cartel stays in line because they know to keep the area safe or the money leaves. I’m sure they own stake in most of the resorts or night clubs. Not to mention the Mexican Marines are in charge of the resort areas, and they typically are the only law enforcement that isn’t totally corrupt and they do a good job of keeping stuff very safe and in line.

17

cntmpltvno t1_jdt20q1 wrote

In Puerto Vallarta, NJGC is the big power player cartel, and it was reported last year that they had stake in 70% of the legitimate businesses in the city. The cartels don’t play around in tourist areas, that’s where all of their money comes from.

Lived there for a little under a year, can confirm that the cartel was everywhere, and that they played nice as long as you didn’t mess with them in any way. Honestly felt safer there than in any American city I’ve been in in a long time, even when walking around alone in the middle of the night.

10

Anerky t1_jdt3wh5 wrote

I’m from NJ/NY and I feel safer when I go on vacation to Mexico than I do going to Newark/Atlantic City/ Queens + Bronx/ some parts of Philly especially at night. I’d rather walk around in Cancun with $100 taped to my forehead than go into Camden at night lol

13

Froggy_Dude t1_jdtnfde wrote

A lot like the U.S. government protects you. Governments have historically been organized criminal organizations.

1

AKAkorm t1_jds0tf1 wrote

Its a dumb hope to have. Time and time again it has been shown that the Olympics are a financial strain to the host countries with little impact to long-term tourism. Much of the infrastructure and facilities built will be underused or unused altogether after the games.

Honestly don't know why any country wants to host the Games. Must be entirely pride.

59

eckers19 t1_jdte49k wrote

One of the main reasons Australia is hosting it is due to the fact we already have all the facilities needed and those being built will have a use after the Olympics

21

Uffffffffffff8372738 t1_jdsx6v5 wrote

Not just that, but Mexico City does not just have horrible air quality, but is also 2250 meters or 7350 feet above sea level. That is not gonna fly with the athletes

9

skunkachunks t1_jdtpzmp wrote

Honestly I’ve noticed countries finally realizing this.

Paris and LA won 2024 and 2028 simultaneously (and respectively) bc everybody pulled their bids and Paris and LA were the only ones left.

Brisbane won 2032 bc nobody else bid.

2036 seems to have multiple bids but let’s see who actually makes it to the voting stage.

7

yeahright17 t1_jdtxvoa wrote

Neither LA nor Brisbane are building much new and neither are building anything that doesn’t have a long time permanent use (other than temporary stands for things like sand volleyball). Cities will continue to bid, but I think it will mostly be cities with existing facilities.

7

byneothername t1_jdu0a4e wrote

I’m actually excited about LA. We are using a lot of old facilities, and I have family that lives close by. Gonna take my eight year old son to see the opening ceremony and some games, I think it will be a great experience.

5

rebeltrillionaire t1_jdui79u wrote

We are rushing to finish a bunch of major transit projects. But that’s a benefit for LA forever.

In fact I wouldn’t even mind the Olympics coming here every 20 years. If it spurned a huge investment in real infrastructure. Let the billionaires keep building stadiums. I just want that Choo Choo moneys

2

Spascucci t1_jdt75p9 wrote

México already hosted the olympics once and already has many cities with modern sports infraestructure, most likely México Will just renovaré some.of the already existing sport venues

4

TinKicker t1_jdtev4d wrote

Like they did with the Mexico City Airport?

2

CharToll t1_jds0m8e wrote

I hope they do too. They have an amazing culture, incredible country with loads of summer Olympic potential locations. Their athletes are world class and they have mezcal.

20

Uffffffffffff8372738 t1_jdsxqtc wrote

Yeah it’s just what the Mexican people needed! Something that is a huge waste of government money! Also, it’s gonna be amazing for the athletes, at over two kilometers or seven thousand feet above sea level.

5

cspinasdf t1_jdt0wuj wrote

I'd be curious if it'd improve the long jump and some other games. Obviously it'd hinder most, but I'd still be curious as to the effects

2

ImTellinTim t1_jdtk4eh wrote

Well the Olympic long jump record is still from Mexico City in 1968 and has only been beaten once since. His jump in 1968 beat the existing world record by almost 2 feet.

5

Drumsticksboy t1_jdt95ep wrote

Hosting a sporting event should be the last thing the Mexican government should be putting in resources to right now.

−1

Alternative_Demand96 t1_jdu29g7 wrote

Care to enlighten me on the geopolitics of Mexico? I’m waiting

0

ExtremeMuffin t1_jdt9i7c wrote

Everyone commenting that the cartels will make large amounts of kidnappings or murders are idiots. The cartels have better things to do then kidnap a bunch of international athletes and tourists. And the government has literally nothing better to do them to protect those athletes and tourists.

Attacking tourism is bad for cartels business. They want tourists to come to Mexico as they make money from tourists.

The real people at risk from the cartels here are those involved in planning the olympics. Bribes, intimidation, and murder of officials will likely be used to ensure cartel connected businesses are awarded contracts.

18

Writerhaha t1_jdtmy3j wrote

Right?

Do people have any idea how much illicit business will be going down over 3 months?

Hookers, gambling and drugs will be flying off the shelves.

7

Froggy_Dude t1_jdtnze5 wrote

>The real people at risk from the cartels here are those involved in planning the olympics. Bribes, intimidation, and murder of officials will likely be used to ensure cartel connected businesses are awarded contracts.

I wonder if they even need to do this anymore since I'd assume they already own everything.

2

Arrg-ima-pirate t1_jdtyn5e wrote

That’s an interesting point, so I will remove my comments about cartels kidnapping.

But in your opinion, why do you think the government would be able to protect the tourist? And why is it that they don’t already protect the tourist?

1

ExtremeMuffin t1_jdtyyye wrote

Tourists in Mexico already are protected. While attacks do happen they almost always involve the tourist putting themselves in a dangerous position and pissing off the cartels. Millions of tourists visit Mexico every year completely safely. Which again the cartels are perfectly happy with as they are directly profiting from this.

2

ryan0988 t1_jdpzqby wrote

I hope not just because of their huge crime problem.

9

iloveyoumiri t1_jdq3bus wrote

Brazil’s got a higher homicide rate per capita

18

kbig22432 t1_jdqxdwd wrote

I always find it funny when people immediately want to bring up something off topic in response to a comment.

−38

hambone8181 t1_jdr7kpt wrote

Well, Brazil did literally just host the Olympics pretty recently. I wouldn’t say comparing a previous Olympics location to a proposed future one is “off-topic”

43

kbig22432 t1_jdr9bbn wrote

Why not engage the actual topic before whatabouting? How does one crime statistic factor into a separate country hosting the Olympics?

−39

hambone8181 t1_jdra2lh wrote

But follow the thread, though? It’s started with OP saying that because of Mexico’s high crime rate, they didn’t think they should host the Olympics. Then the follow up was that a previous Olympic host country had even higher crime rates. The topic is crime rates as they pertain to a country’s “worthiness” to host the Olympics. I don’t see how it’s whataboutism to bring up the crime rates of previous host countries to inform the discussion of what is an acceptable rate of crime for a host country to have.

29

kbig22432 t1_jdrayec wrote

They brought up one crime rate, from a country that doesn’t currently have a huge portion of their budget dedicated to fighting large scale drug cartels.

Sure, it could be useful to look at murder rates, but the grand scheme of Mexico’s ability to host the Olympic Games is much larger than murder rates.

My point is your knee jerk reaction to the question shouldn’t be to bring up a country that isn’t even in the same hemisphere.

−29

TheShishkabob t1_jdrfyu6 wrote

You're allowed to disengage with a topic when you've been proven to be wrong. You don't even have to apologize if you don't want to, but why would you continue to make a fool of yourself like this?

17

kbig22432 t1_jdrjdor wrote

How about political crime, does that count? Should we be allowing the Mexican government to use funds generated around hosting the Olympics to further enrich cartels?

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-mexico-drugs/mexico-cartels-paid-4-5-million-political-bribes-court-idUKTRE81A05A20120211

How much do you think the government will pay to turn down the hostility while the games are hosted? When you’re talking about crime rates, racketeering is a factor as well.

But I’m the one that needs to take the L.

−6

TheShishkabob t1_jdrlu4l wrote

Have you tried actually reading the comments?

>I hope not just because of their huge crime problem.

That started this chain. This was followed by someone pointing out that Brazil, who hosted the Olympics a mere 8 years ago, has a higher crime rate. You then barged in, like an absolute buffoon might I add, and pretend that a direct comparison to an actual and recent Olympic host nation was somehow "whataboutism".

You're wrong because you refuse to read or don't know what the words you're responding to and with mean. That's either illiteracy or ignorance, take your pick. So yes, you are indeed "the one that needs to take the L".

12

Dev_WhoDat t1_jds0wt0 wrote

Let's be honest, my guy tried to call someone out but actually forgot or didn't know that Brazil actually hosted the Olympics and now just doesn't want to admit it so just keeps digging his own grave deeper and deeper

7

kbig22432 t1_jds8awi wrote

I didn’t forget about it, I just didn’t think it was a good starting point for a discussion.

>”American Olympic champion swimmer Ryan Lochte became the latest victim of Rio's street crime early Sunday morning when he was robbed at gunpoint after attending a party. That follows robberies of representatives from Portugal, China, Australia, Russia, and even an attempted mugging on the chief of security for the Games outside the opening ceremony, which ended with a bodyguard shooting and killing the assailant.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/rio-2016/2016/08/14/rio-olympics-muggings-brazil-tourism-woes/88719804/

Precedents doesn’t mean prudent, meaning just because it was done before doesn’t mean it should be repeated.

And that’s not to say that Mexico shouldn’t get the games. The whole point of this is statement that Brazil’s homicide rate was higher doesn’t no work argument wise. It’s just a fact with now analysis.

But no one is interested in that.

0

TheShishkabob t1_jdtg8py wrote

In the continuing saga of how you're wrong, you picked out the proven lie to attempt to make a point.

Lochte wasn't robbed. That's the lie he told but it was actually proven that the "robbers" were security guards and what they were doing was stopping him and a group of other swimmers since they were pissing on the side of a gas station and vandalized a framed poster of some kind.

I can kind of give the media a pass for the initial mistake since swimming was one of the bigger Olympic sports for Americans at the time, but the correction was issued months later and you've had eight years of debunking that source already.

2

kbig22432 t1_jdrne6v wrote

And again my points aren’t addressed. Instead the focus of what I’m saying is the word I used , “whataboutism”, and not the point I’m making, that using an example from another country (and a single crime statistic at that) isn’t a good basis for a discussion.

>“I hope not just because of their huge crime problem.”

>”This was followed by someone pointing out that Brazil, who hosted the Olympics a mere 8 years ago, has a higher crime rate.”

Except if you actually read what they said in reply to the precipitating comment, they never said “crime rate” they said murder.

>”You then barged in, like an absolute buffoon might I add, and pretend that a direct comparison to an actual and recent Olympic host nation was somehow "whataboutism".

How similar are the two countries? How is crime enforced in Brazil compared to Mexico? How is crime reported? All of these are factors that contribute to the conversation, yet none of that is addressed.

>”You're wrong because you refuse to read or don't know what the words you're responding to and with mean.”

Interesting, considering the nuanced approach I’m taking to the discussion of Mexico’s ability to host the Olympics compared to one simple statistic.

By the way, “a mere eight years” is an idiotic take on world politics. If you live in the US, you know very well how different a country can be in that amount of time.

0

TheShishkabob t1_jdrsu8a wrote

>And again my points aren’t addressed.

Let's just drop this with a quote from an earlier comment in this thread

>>Why not engage the actual topic before whatabouting?

I guess it's time to take your own advice.

4

kbig22432 t1_jdrtake wrote

Might as well, you’re not adding anything to the discussion anyways.

0

Uffffffffffff8372738 t1_jdsxko7 wrote

I haven’t seen someone in quite a while that was so fucking willing to not except an absolutely obvious L.

2

kbig22432 t1_jdrhy5e wrote

Who has proved what I’m saying is wrong?

Are you saying it’s wrong to want to look at a the country’s problems individually before making comparisons?

I guess that settles it then. If Brazil can hold off all the murder long enough to hold the games, then Mexico should be able to.

Nevermind the medical tourists that were kidnapped, two of whom were killed by cartels, forget about the .50 cal the cartels were using to shoot at aircraft at the airport. Let’s talk about murder rates from South America.

Btw, my wife is Mexican, my mother and father in law are from Nayarit and we have family there still. We talk about what it’s like dealing with the cartels in the next state of Sinoloa.

−7

Bucksandreds t1_jdrg0ny wrote

I don’t think Mexico or Brazil should be hosting the Olympics given their murder rates. You’re way off base though, claiming that the arguments aren’t useful or unrelated. Take the L and move on.

4

kbig22432 t1_jdrggld wrote

What arguments? One person brought up murder rates.

−1

Avogato2 t1_jdrgl5l wrote

Cartels will give the money to the government. Government bribes the IOC. Olympics in Mexico/Profit

−1

[deleted] t1_jdrocc2 wrote

The opportunity for cartels to kidnap and murder has never been so big!!! They must be really excited!!

5

Lyceus_ t1_jds1e4e wrote

They'd better start putting their tax-payers' money into the IOC's wallets.

4

WWDB t1_jdtfcd3 wrote

Why do countries keep falling for this scam?

4

burncushlikewood t1_jdtiss3 wrote

Mexico right off the Gulf, how amazing would it be to go to Mexico for the Olympics! Maybe I'll be able to make it out there

3

Lobsterpoutineftw t1_jdsnzwr wrote

I hope they get it and its good for the locals. Its an amazing place, and the people that I have been fortunate enough to meet traveling there are amazing. Wish I could live there

2

Arrg-ima-pirate t1_jdtzlht wrote

Except… it’s not Always good for the locals… like when countries bulldoze neighborhoods to build stadiums… that’s not always the case. But it’s not super rare either.

1

koreamax t1_jdtax5l wrote

If we only gave Olympics to countries without issues, we'd have no Olympics

2

drinkingchartreuse t1_jdtchts wrote

Two thirds of your country live in poverty and you want to squander billions on olympic facilities.

2

Spodiodie t1_jdtod82 wrote

Just bribe the right people.

2

Actaeus86 t1_jdtegur wrote

So the cartels will all be gone in the next 13-17 years?

1

TinKicker t1_jdtfo4a wrote

Duarte canceled the (very badly needed) new airport in Mexico City, after construction had already begun. In no universe could the current MEX airport handle anything even slightly above its current passenger capacity.

(Unless, of course, this whole Olympic gambit is just a strategy to re-start the canceled new airport! In which case, it would totally be worth it.)

1

backfilled t1_jdw29fc wrote

I don't know who Duarte is...

But, an airport was built after the cancellation of the other one. A train line is in construction to connect it to the city proper. Still in very early stages of operation though... so, hopefully is not just another waste of our taxes.

1

OrvilleBeddoe t1_jdtgtqc wrote

Think they can clean that mess up in 12 years? Doubt it. The government there has no will.

1

Arrg-ima-pirate t1_jdu0d9p wrote

I’m not sure I agree, it’s just difficult when the cartels are bringing in more money in arms than the government has in military and police budgets.

That’s just where the problem starts. The cartel’s also have long infiltrated the police and military. So asking them to move on the cartels presents a problem. There’s not a lot of easy solutions.

1

Spascucci t1_jducuot wrote

The mexican army budget is in the billions, they definitely have a lot more firepower than the cartels, the cartels have to ambush little patrol squads when they want to take on the military because otherwise they get completely destroyed 99% of the times, the real problems aré the engagement rules of the army and the inneficient strategy of the current federal government that makes very hard to effectively fight the cartels

1

Writerhaha t1_jdtmjrz wrote

Already making trips around NA for the World Cup in 2026 so would love to see Olympics on the continent.

1

Compducer t1_jdtqwhm wrote

If hopes were ropes, we’d all be hung

1

JackKovack t1_jdu1tly wrote

As long as the Olympic Committee gets paid they’ll go anywhere.

1

Isle_of_Dusty_Rhodes t1_jdu5iyw wrote

I'm pretty sure by 2040 their country will be part of the Brigand State of Oaxaca. The Olympics will be cancelled when the New Canaan athletes poison the Emirate Union and the new Holy Province of Long Island launches their nukes.

1

mileswilliams t1_jducvtl wrote

Do you mean the Olympics? There is no need to say summer Olympics, just like horseback riding and eye glasses no need

1

Sir_Jax t1_jdul5w1 wrote

Please for the love of fuck take it from Brisbane. 2/3s of the Brisbane games WONT be held in Brisbane cose we don’t have the infrastructure. It was a corrupt government that tricked everyone with this shit!

1

catoodles9ii t1_jduyg5d wrote

I’m impressed that they think we’re gonna make it that long

1

migs9000 t1_jdv05fu wrote

Lot of people who've never visited mexico with big ass opinions on Mexico's safety in these comments

1

ZLUCremisi t1_jdswmat wrote

Mexico, US, Canada combined for Olympics would be cool. Spread it out and reduce economic burden

0

OpeningOnion7248 t1_jdtcm4z wrote

The first sport is Narco Sicario 50 meter rifle.

0

bwatts53 t1_jdudt3q wrote

Should it even be called Mexico at this point. Or just the cartel

0

stingertc t1_jdsjgy6 wrote

Man they can't protect a wet paper bag how are they going to protect athletes from being ransomed

−1

frankiedonkeybrainz t1_jdtlz6u wrote

Cartel would probably be providing security. I could be completely wrong but Cartels couldn't afford the type of heat kidnapping /murdering athletes or tourists while the world is watching would bring.

It's the same reason the Cartel gave up members to authorities and apologized a few weeks ago when the 4 Americans were kidnapped. They don't want a true us intervention.

1

Arrg-ima-pirate t1_jdu0l7b wrote

Not only would they provide security, at a literally extortionate rate, but also the building materials, contractors, laborers, vendors, ect ect.

1

mental_reincarnation t1_jdsqkd3 wrote

Even if you want to pretend the cartel situation isn’t that bad (family and I have gotten so many relatives telling us not to visit because of it and way too many personal stories. And yes of course it’ll be safer in tourist areas), what you will see is laser pointers. Laser pointers everywhere.

−1

Spascucci t1_jdudavg wrote

The cartel situation its bad In just some states like Zacatecas and tamaulipas, in most cities you ill not see cartels of you aré not looking into illegal stuff, in my almost 30 years i have never experiences any type of violence and i live in central México in a non turístic area

1

pacman9487 t1_jdsyqws wrote

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

−1

FinkBass420 t1_jdt3od2 wrote

People can’t even vacation there right now without worrying about being targeted by the fuckhead cartel, but it’s ok let’s send all of the worlds athletes there it’ll be fine

−1

moderatesoul t1_jds0dkn wrote

Kinda hope there are no Olympics by then, but good on you Mexico.

−2

donthatedrowning t1_jdsxlbm wrote

Lol Mexico thinking there will still be civilization on this planet in 2040

−2

Nashville_Redditors t1_jdqwzd8 wrote

A lot of people want to go there someday, but nobody actually will

−4

crf865 t1_jdrvz1y wrote

To Mexico? It's an extremely popular tourist destination?

38

Adeep187 t1_jds9u75 wrote

Right lol

−15

crf865 t1_jdsjfiq wrote

I and many people I know have been there, and we're Australian. We all loved it.

11

Adeep187 t1_jdsplut wrote

I'm from a different country and people go to Mexico ALL THE TIME.

0

crf865 t1_jdss9jw wrote

"In 2022, 66 million international visitors arrived in Mexico. That is 10.7 million more visitors compared to 2021 which represented an increase of 19.3%."

Is that better?

7

Adeep187 t1_jdssndz wrote

Why is everyone downvoting me for agreeing lmao. Reddit weird sometimes.

5

crf865 t1_jdsu5xw wrote

Oh. Your grammar makes it read like you're mocking the idea not concurring with it.

7

Meaca t1_jdsuegn wrote

I think people read your first comment as sarcastic... Reddit tends to be combative so people assume ambiguous replies are antagonistic

1

Adeep187 t1_jdsxcsr wrote

I guess for the first makes sense but after that, doesn't make sense but oh well.

3

Meaca t1_jdt4l4a wrote

Once the first reply goes negative it's seen as an argument and since you're the honorary bad guy of the day (sorry), some people will just reflexively downvote all your replies. This one might even go negative if the post still gets traffic!

2

neatgeek83 t1_jdssjm1 wrote

that's cute they think there will still be a civilization by then

−4

Key-Cry-8570 t1_jdstai6 wrote

Pretty sure they don’t have a civilization anymore just a bunch of warring cartel bosses (warlords)

−6

Jackdks t1_jdt64ej wrote

That will never happen while a travel ban remains in effect

Edit: advisory* here’s what travel.gov has to say…

Do Not Travel To:

Colima state due to crime and kidnapping. Guerrero state due to crime. Michoacan state due to crime and kidnapping. Sinaloa state due to crime and kidnapping Tamaulipas state due to crime and kidnapping. Zacatecas state due to crime and kidnapping. Reconsider Travel To:

Baja California state due to crime and kidnapping. Chihuahua state due to crime and kidnapping. Durango state due to crime. Guanajuato state due to crime and kidnapping. Jalisco state due to crime and kidnapping. Morelos state due to crime. Sonora state due to crime and kidnapping.

Exercise Increased Caution When Traveling To:

Aguascalientes state due to crime. Baja California Sur state due to crime. Chiapas state due to crime. Coahuila state due to crime. Hidalgo state due to crime. Mexico City due to crime. Mexico State due to crime. Nayarit state due to crime. Nuevo Leon state due to crime and kidnapping. Oaxaca state due to crime. Puebla state due to crime and kidnapping. Queretaro state due to crime. Quintana Roo state due to crime and kidnapping. San Luis Potosi state due to crime and kidnapping. Tabasco state due to crime. Tlaxcala state due to crime. Veracruz state due to crime.

Exercise Normal Precautions When Traveling To:

Campeche state Yucatan state

-so you can go to the cancun peninsula and vacation right now, exercising normal precautions. When I went to Cancun last time, nearly 10 years ago- the police were armed with M4’s so pretty sure normal precautions is still pretty bad. Like don’t leave the resort type shit.

−4

Spascucci t1_jdt7jzm wrote

Cancún is in Quintana Roo state, not Yucatán, Yucatán has some of the lowest crime and murder rates in all of North américa, including the Canada and the us

3

[deleted] t1_jds5s3m wrote

Lotsa people bout to get carteled

−5

americansherlock201 t1_jdsdopy wrote

Depends. If they host it in Mexico City, they can effectively use the army to keep the cartels away.

If the games are spread around around the nation, then they are fucked. The cartel’s effectively run large portions of the country

3

Bubbasteed t1_jdrb2q0 wrote

We'll all be war ravaged by then

−6

LadyToph t1_jds6rcu wrote

Did anyone else see that total massacre at a soccer game? But Mexico is a beautiful country, just about as dangerous with less ability to hide it than US

−14