January 4, 2016

"The Republican presidential candidate’s long-awaited and hotly anticipated first ad..."

"... is set to launch Monday as part of a series that will air in the final month before the Iowa caucuses."
Trump has vowed to spend at least $2 million a week on the ads — an amount that will be amplified by the countless times they are likely to be played on cable news and across social media.

The decision to air television ads — which Trump hinted at for months, though the billionaire mogul has been loath to spend more than he deems necessary — represents a tightly produced new act for a candidate who has fed largely off free media attention.

In an interview Sunday with The Post, Trump said that he has six to eight ads in production and that his was a “major buy and it’s going to go on for months.” He said he hopes the spots impress upon undecided voters that the country has become “a dumping ground.”

“The world is laughing at us, at our stupidity,” he said. “It’s got to stop. We’ve got to get smart fast — or else we won’t have a country.”
Watch it with me:

61 comments:

Curious George said...

yuge.

David said...

Interesting that The Donald is only quickly visible at the beginning and the end. That seems a good decision. Rubio's ad that played last night during the Packer game was tedious. I can't really remember the points he was making. Donald's you remember.

Curious George said...

"Watch it with me"

What time do you want us over?

Sebastian said...

OK. So how is he going to get Mexico to pay for that wall? Trump has a certain, um, Jacksonian vibe, in the Walter Russell Mead sense.

In blue states he should just run parts of his Sunday interview.

Chuck said...

Althouse I fear that your blog might soon have to report its operation to the FEC as an in-kind donation to the Trump campaign.

David Begley said...

Trump is a WWE character running for President on an appeal to emotion.

And it just might work.

Why doesn't Jeb take him on directly? His only shot. And Jeb has the money.

Given that Ross Perot did to his dad, Jeb should do whatever is necessary to spare us from Trump. Otherwise hello President Hillary.

Original Mike said...

Meh. Even though I don't dismiss the importance of Islamic Radical Terrorism like Libs do, I would have started with the economy.

Have we been told how Trump's going to get Mexico to pay for the wall? I seem to remember that we have, but it escapes me.

wildswan said...

This ad makes two points both on immigration: Trump wants a temporary ban on Muslims entering the US and he wants an effective policy of legal immigration on the southern border. This ad will make him look moderate compared to journalistic rhetoric about what he wants. Hillary will have to say she wants no vetting and continued illegal immigration as under Obama (picture of the two together). So I see it. I wonder what Iowa sees.

Limited blogger said...

Judging from some of the adjectives being puked out of the Wash. Post article - provocative, chaotic, explosive, ominous, thundering - I think Trump hit the bull's eye again.

Big Mike said...

@David Begley, Hillary Clinton will have to cheat wholesale to carry more than ten states against Trump.

Unknown said...

I do find his assertion about Mexico funding the wall strange, as if we can not afford it. But possibly he is using his Jedi mind tricks on us with this one as well. The debate about whether we need the wall has almost stopped being discussed, instead the mechanism of how we pay for it is discussed.

There is no doubt that we could force Mexico to either shut down their border or at least shut down their southern border. Nothing more than requiring very large fees for goods moving to us would do it, I expect. I am quite sure there are a lot of Mexican businessmen and politicians that are getting very rich on US commerce. We are like Walmart in a lot of respects, we get to dictate the terms if they want the Biz.

First executive order, throughly inspect every shipment from Mexico into the US.

Chuck said...

Big Mike:

Wanna bet? My best guess is that Trump won't be the Republican nominee. But in the disastrous event that he is, I bet that Trump loses the general election in a landslide. He'd lose every swing state, from Pennsylvania, to Virginia, to Florida, to Ohio, to Nevada. Something like a 300+ electoral vote loss.

Anyway, let's you and I make it easy. Donald Trump will not be the 45th President of the United States. Now; in addition to making it easy, shall we make it interesting?

David Begley said...

Big Mike

Look at the polls. Trump is the only candidate that loses to Hillary. Young people and the middle 10% don't like Donald.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@Big Mike

I agree. I see coverage that tries to minimize Trump's presence, and influence, on the primaries (including someone making the statement "when Jeb Bush was the front runner." When has that ever been the case? Jeb Bush has the support of the GOPe and that is it. They are determined to drag that dead horse over the finish line.

The fact is that Trump's appeal is widespread because his positions on immigration and terrorism are popular with large portions of the electorate both in the Republican and Democrat parties as well as with independents.

The people they are not popular with are the governing establishment, including the MSM.

Great swathes of the American public are pissed off and the governments response is basically, "Sod of you ignorant morons. You'll take what we give you and you will like it, or else."

This is not going to end well.

Freder Frederson said...

Well, he is just doubling down on the crazy, isn't he.

Trump is a WWE character running for President on an appeal to emotion.

And it just might work.


True, but like the WWE, Trump has a limited following that is much less than a majority (and I would imagine there is quite a congruence between WWE and Trump fans). At most this is twenty to thirty percent of the electorate.

The rest of the country thinks Trump is batshit crazy and downright dangerous. Granted, condemning twenty to thirty percent of the electorate as ill-informed, unrealistic and paranoid is pretty harsh. But I still think sanity will prevail.

This ad will make him look moderate compared to journalistic rhetoric about what he wants.

Really!? Point to "journalistic rhetoric" that makes him seem more extreme. We need links, not just unsupported statements.

traditionalguy said...

There he goes again, stating the truth in public without fear. As British PM Ben Disrealli said about Prussia's Bismarck, We had better watch out for this man. He means exactly what he says.

The Big Lie on every network hit piece for weeks starts with a claim that Trump has banned all Muslims from the USA.

Actually, he carefully chose words that did no such thing and cautiously read them from a prepared Statement. Of course he was then hit for style on reading it and not giving it in spontaneous speech.

Hagar said...

-though the billionaire mogul has been loath to spend more than he deems necessary -

Isn't this part of the reason why he is a billionaire?
Kind of wish Democrats would pick up on the idea; especially those elected to office.

grimson said...

The ad seems like a waste of money--it just reinforces what people have already heard about Trump's positions, without making them any more compelling to the unconvinced. I will be more interested in his ads that cover new ground and/or highlight his core positions on domestic policy, including deficit spending and entitlement reform.

Chuck said...

traditional guy:

What are you talking about? Trump did indeed propose to ban all Muslims entering the United States. The written statement from his campaign, which Trump [mostly] read stated the following:

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

Trump, reading the statement in a speech in South Carolina, ad-libbed "...what the hell is going on."

When some observant journalists asked Trump's staff about technicalities like Muslim American citizens traveling abroad, or Muslim foreign diplomats stationed to the U.S. or several other thorny scenarios, the Trump staff simply said that Mr. Trump meant exactly what he said. And then, confronted with the ludicrous reality of such a pledge, they began to walk it back.

The Democrats will raise something close to a billion dollars to win the White House in 2016. Donald Trump's personally spending $30 or $50 or even $100 million (if he really has that kind of cash -- I doubt it) would not come close.

Drago said...

David Begley: "Why doesn't Jeb take him on directly? His only shot. And Jeb has the money"

Because Jeb is fighting the last war in thinking that he has to clear the field of the other establishment moderates in order to take on Trump directly from a position of strength.

What's changed is that it is conceivable that Trump could sew this up very early in the process and render this game-plan moot.

In defense of Jeb, it's not like the other establishment candidates aren't doing the very same thing.

Drago said...

Freder Frederson: "Well, he is just doubling down on the crazy, isn't he."

Which specific Trump policy ideas are "crazy"?

Not to worry, no one expects you to provide a coherent answer.

grackle said...

It seems to me the Trump modus operandi is a mixture of the intuitive and the practical.

This ad features a more subdued, thoughtful Trump. He’s definitely running directly against Hillary in the ad – and Obama of course.

His campaign up until now with this ad sometimes appeared to me as a ballet, peppered in intervals with opera. Trump, as Nureyev, assists the swan, his campaign, through the various leaps and pirouettes of the dance. At intervals he assumes the lead singer role and at center stage belts out his seemingly impromptu lyrics. I’m struck at how many of the photos of him resemble a singer in full throat.

Trump’s exact opposite, Sanders, draws his strength from Hillary’s weakness as a Democrat standard bearer. Her public persona is drab, derivative and grating all at the same time. Sanders at least brings heat to the stage, that “the Bern” is the socialistic ranting of a true believer is beside the point. If the Democrats had a credible candidate to run instead of the corrupt duo of Bill and Hillary, Sanders as a socialist would be a minor note in this opus of a campaign season.

In the meantime Trump rolls on, playing to huge crowds. Has anyone heard anything more from the Hillary camp about how Trump is a sexist in the last few days?

mccullough said...

Trump might be able to win more black votes than other Rpublicans have. He's not a typical white person like Obama's grandma when it comes to appealing to blacks. He's not threatening to cut off social spending, etc. or blaming them for the high illegitimacy rate among blacks or their high rate of violence. He's blaming it on illegal immigration. So he's offering them the same things as Dems but also saying he will help them even more by deporting the Mexicans who took their jobs. And he's telling American tech workers he's going to help them by cutting off the H1-B visas that erode their wages and their jobs.

It's an interesting platform.

traditionalguy said...

On 9/11/2001 the President made a complete and total ban on all flights entering US Airspace until American Representatives could figure out what the hell was going on. That did not mean all foreign Airlines were being permanently banned from the USA.

I know English is hard stuff. Especially the parts telling Congress it has a job to do quickly in order to restore immediate, unlimited travel visas to soldiers of The Religion of Peace.

Chuck said...

Drago:

It would be a part-time job, to compile all of Trump's crazy ideas. But I'll skip over all of his foolish malapropisms, and his little displays of stupidity (i.e. the nuclear triad) and his gross displays of personal indecency ("I prefer people who weren't [like Lt. John McCain, flying a fighter bomber over North Vietnam] catured).

Let's just go to the really batshit crazy ideas.

~The timing of childhood immunizations is dangerous.

~"Environmentally friendly light bulbs" cause cancer.

~Trump claiming credit for a Ford Motor Company plan to locate medium duty truck production to an assembly plant in Ohio after Trump's bizarre claim to intend to personally place a 35% import tax on Ford products from Mexico.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/trumps-bogus-boast-on-ford/

~Then there are the policy flips. He favored the 1996 assault weapons ban. Currently a "traditionalist" on same-sex marriage, he apparently attended a same-sex wedding and thought it was beautiful. He was pro-choice before he was pro-life. He thought that Bill Clinton's impeachment scandal was, uh, overblown. He's been a donor to the Clinton foundation and to the Hillary Clinton campaigns for Senate and the '08 presidential primary. He thought Hillary would be a great Senator and a great Secretary of State before 2012. And on and on and on.

Chuck said...

traditional guy:

You aren't being serious are you? You can't see the difference between a temporary shutdown of all air traffic, and the temporary shutdown of one religion's air traffic?

Without any religious identifier on a passport, just how are you going to decide who is a Muslim? Are you going to ask? Are you going to bar returning U.S. servicemen who are Muslim? Are you going to bar Saudi Arabian diplomats who need to speak to our military planners about a possible war with Iran?

You see how hard it is, when "crazy" meets "questions"?

eric said...

Blogger Chuck said...


Without any religious identifier on a passport, just how are you going to decide who is a Muslim? Are you going to ask? Are you going to bar returning U.S. servicemen who are Muslim? Are you going to bar Saudi Arabian diplomats who need to speak to our military planners about a possible war with Iran?


These are solid questions, Chuck. Let's ask them about current immigration law.

How will we identify prostitutes without any designation on a passport?

How will we identify members of a communist or totalitarian party without any identifiers on a passport?

How will we identify who is a terrorist without any identifiers on a passport?

How will we identify who are drug traffickers without it being written in a passport?

How will we identify alien smugglers without it being written in a passport?

Clearly our officers on the border aren't able to figure any of this out unless it's written in a passport.

Crazy!

John Henry said...

Blogger Unknown said...
I do find his assertion about Mexico funding the wall strange, as if we can not afford it.

Me too and I would like more details on how he gets Mexico to pay for the wall. Whether or not we can afford it, why not get Mexico to pay for it if we can?

It is not completely far-fetched. All a President Trump would have to do would be to announce two policy changes. I am not certain but I think he can already do the following under existing law:

1) All Mexican citizens with a college degree and/or a useful skill would be invited to come to the US and immediately receive a permanent green card. They would be eligible for citizenship under the currently existing laws.

a) As a corrollary, any Mexican citizen with $100,000 or more that they are willing to invest in the US would be welcome. The money would have to have been legally obtained, of course.

2) All Mexican illegal aliens in the US would be immediately rounded up and deported back to Mexico. No grace period, no hearing, no sympathy. They would be permitted to take their US citizen children with them or leave them here. A lot of these folks are currently sending money back to Mexico. If they go back it is a double whammy. No more remittances and an influx of people who will need govt assistance, at least temporarily.

I don't know that this is a good idea for a variety of reasons. It is pretty close to an act of war, I would think. These are the people Mexico can least afford to lose and if we put this in place, they would build a wall like the Berlin Wall and for the same reasons.

The threat of doing something like this, along with the unpredictability of knowing whether Trump really would do it, might lead Mexico towards helping control the border.

No idea if this is what Trump has in mind. Scott Adams originally suggested it as a possibility, he had no idea if Trump was thinking this either.

John Henry

John Henry said...

Blogger Chuck said...

Anyway, let's you and I make it easy. Donald Trump will not be the 45th President of the United States. Now; in addition to making it easy, shall we make it interesting?

On the assumption that it is Trump v Hilary! in November, I'll take a piece of that. Say $5 that Trump wins a majority of popular and electoral votes.

If it is someone other than Hilary and Trump, I reserve the right to reconsider.

This also assumes that Jeb! or one of the other Repos does not decide to run 3rd party.

Email johnfajardohenry@gmail.com if you are interested.

John Henry

Freder Frederson said...

Which specific Trump policy ideas are "crazy"?


Building a wall along the entire length of the border with Mexico is a crazy idea, not to mention that making Mexico pay for it is nothing but meaningless and impossible bluster.

Banning all Muslims from entering or reentering the country is a crazy idea, and with regards to U.S. citizens and legal residents, almost certainly unconstitutional.

Advocating "taking out" the families of terrorists and torturing terrorist suspects is not so much crazy as immoral, illegal, and constitutes crimes against humanity.

Deporting all 11 million or so undocumented immigrants (and maybe their U.S. citizen children) is also a crazy idea.

And let's not forget that Trump was a birther long after they looked completely ridiculous.

John Henry said...

Blogger Chuck said...

Without any religious identifier on a passport, just how are you going to decide who is a Muslim?

I believe that we ban people who are HIV positive from entering the US. (At least we used to) How do you think we decide that, Chuck?

As far as returning American Muslim citizens, that has always been a strawman. Trump never said anything about keeping Americans from returning. Read his original statements on this.

John Henry

Chuck said...

Oh give me a freaking break, Trumpkins. We are going to ask people questions, and investigate them. It costs a hell of a lot of money to do that, and it is painful. But we have to do some of it. We investigate suspected terrorists in order to prevent terrorist acts. Is it our national mission to prevent Islamic worship?

There are foreign records; there are foreign and domestic criminal records.

But what makes somebody an 'inadmittable' Muslim? "Membership"? (Is there such a thing? Do they get cards? My church doesn't have cards.) Attended a mosque in the last week? Last month? Last year? Ever? Enrolled in a madrassa as a teen? As a pre-teen? Define "Muslim" for purposes of barring entry.

And when you do that, you have to do it in such a way that is logical and makes legal sense. That it will serve a national security purpose so compelling that it would withstand Fifth Amendment federal due process "strict scrutiny."

Paul said...

"Trump might be able to win more black votes than other Republicans have."

Yep. I know quite a few black people who support him. None of the many blacks I work with EVER have supported any other Republican,

Chuck said...

John Henry said...

I believe that we ban people who are HIV positive from entering the US. (At least we used to) How do you think we decide that, Chuck?


Um, give me a minute. Okay, I got it. We require a blood test during the visa application process. Or we at least spot-check with blood work in suspected cases if not all cases. And oh by the way I am totally okay with testing for communicable diseases in the visa application process.

Now; your turn. Tell me about the blood titre for "Muslim."

eric said...


And when you do that, you have to do it in such a way that is logical and makes legal sense. That it will serve a national security purpose so compelling that it would withstand Fifth Amendment federal due process "strict scrutiny."


Now I know you don't understand immigration law.

Unless you're assuming this would apply to US Citizens.

From what I've read of Trump, what he said, and follow up interviews, it does not appear to apply to US Citizens.

In which case, we can bar anyone we would like for whatever reason we would like.

Chuck said...

"Trump might be able to win more black votes than other Republicans have."

Yep. I know quite a few black people who support him. None of the many blacks I work with EVER have supported any other Republican...


Hmmm. M'kay. Why? What is it about Trump? What is Trump doing or saying that would earn him game-changing numbers of black votes? Does Trump stand for one or more policies that they really like? What is it?

If, as I suspect, Hillary Clinton chooses a Cory Booker or a Deval Patrick or even an Elizabeth Warren*, will Trump do any better than about 5% of the black vote? 10%? To what end?

*Presumes that black voters could be instructed on who Elizabeth Warren is.

Original Mike said...

"Building a wall along the entire length of the border with Mexico is a crazy idea, "

(From the Freder's link) "If Donald Trump were to build a wall along the United States' southern border, it would cost billions."

Wherever would we find "billions"? {/sarc}. I'm not a big fan of "The Wall", but the claim that it can't reasonably done is ridiculous. We don't need Mexico to pay for it. We could easily pay for it ourselves.

Paul said...

"Hmmm. M'kay. Why? What is it about Trump? What is Trump doing or saying that would earn him game-changing numbers of black votes? Does Trump stand for one or more policies that they really like? What is it?"

First off blacks do not like the illegals taking away many of their jobs. That should be obvious. They've been hurt more than anyone by the flood of illegals. Second, they like his style, bold, confident and alpha. They despised the Boy Scout Romney. Trump on the other hand fights back and doesn't take any shit. A lot of people like that, including blacks.

Look, you hate Trump. We get that, but I think you're dead wrong about his prospects. To imagine he can't win the primary at this point is just delusional (barring some illicit hijinks). I'm afraid you're in for a rough patch because, again barring some unseen unscrupulous shenanigans, he's on the fast track to being the 45th President. He will chew up Hillary and spit her out and for once the media is helpless to change it.

laura said...

even his 'i'm donald trump and i approve this message' has more energy than most others' campaign speeches. and i'm not even in the trump camp.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Me too and I would like more details on how he gets Mexico to pay for the wall. Whether or not we can afford it, why not get Mexico to pay for it if we can?

Trump argues that Mexico has lots of money from its oil company, and implies he'll simply close the border to all legal traffic if Mexico does not agree to pay for the wall.

Chuck said...

eric you are welcome to think that Trump has subsequently walked back his initial crazy statement referencing "all Muslims" to make it slightly less crazy. But that's not what the original message was, when reporters were first astonished at the recklessness of the whole thing.

You don't have to like or accept any spin or editorializing from TalkingPointsMemo, but just compare the actual quotes from Trump and his spokesperson:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/does-trumps-muslim-ban-include-citizens

My citation of Fifth Amendment strict scrutiny is based on the notion that Congress would never enact a religious-test ban on immigration. It would have to be a Trump/executive order. And as such, I think the federal courts would look very hard at it. I'm just about the most conservative observer of the federal courts you've ever encountered. Indeed, one of my gripes with Trump supporters is that nobody knows who Trump might nominate to federal judicial vacancies and I do not trust Trump on that critical issue any more than I trust him on other issues.

http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/would_scotus_uphold_trumps_plan_to_bar_muslim_immigrants

I'd make a bet on this one; that such an order would never survive federal judicial scrutiny. But since Trump will never be president we'll never see such an order.

Sammy Finkelman said...

How will we identify prostitutes without any designation on a passport?

The answer is they don't always know that, and they don't always stop it but they stop obvious cases. They can guess, which really means refuse to issue a visa for people who need visas.

But the thing is, prostitutes is a category you actually care about. Muslim is not the category you care about, but a proxy for terrorist. It doesn't work as a hard screen against terrorists, because you don't have the proxy fact. You would need a proxy for the proxy.

And it sweeps up ten thousand people maybe for every one you are truly interested in stopping, and it sweeps up one sixth of the world's population, albeit a smaller fraction of would-be vistors to the United States.

Sammy Finkelman said...

I am not certain but I think he can already do the following under existing law:

1) All Mexican citizens with a college degree and/or a useful skill would be invited to come to the US and immediately receive a permanent green card. They would be eligible for citizenship under the currently existing laws.

a) As a corrollary, any Mexican citizen with $100,000 or more that they are willing to invest in the US would be welcome. The money would have to have been legally obtained, of course.


No, he can't. That would require an act of Congress. He could try making a treaty like that with Mexico and then maybe he'd only need to get a 2/3 majority in the Senate.

Freder Frederson said...

Trump never said anything about keeping Americans from returning. Read his original statements on this.

And where did he say "of course U.S. residents won't be prohibited from entering"? He has not mentioned any exceptions to his call.

eric said...

Blogger Sammy Finkelman said...
How will we identify prostitutes without any designation on a passport?

The answer is they don't always know that, and they don't always stop it but they stop obvious cases. They can guess, which really means refuse to issue a visa for people who need visas.


And the answer is the same for Muslims.

eric said...

And where did he say "of course U.S. residents won't be prohibited from entering"? He has not mentioned any exceptions to his call.

Well, except in the title. Which is, " Donald Trumps plan for excluding Muslim Immigration."

I can see how some might think US Citizens are included in that. Our public education here in the united States being what it is.

Drago said...

Freder's got those goalposts moving fast baby!

machine said...

Why would Mexico agree to pay for a wall in Morocco?

jaed said...

*Presumes that black voters could be instructed on who Elizabeth Warren is.

"My vice-presidential candidate is a woman who bravely lied about her ancestry for years in order to gain affirmative-action benefits she wasn't entitled to!"

I don't think that will go over particularly well.

JamesB.BKK said...

@Chuck: Because it's "racist" to be "islamophobic" there should be some identifiable gene.

Freder Frederson said...

I can see how some might think US Citizens are included in that. Our public education here in the united States being what it is.

Well, apparently you are a product of our public education system since you don't even know how to create a simple HTML link. Sorry I googled it and can't find any reference to excluding U.S. citizens from the proposed ban, perhaps you can provide one.

Regardless, my post referred to legal U.S. residents, not only citizens. Provide a link to that.

And I really hope that isn't the title, ( " Donald Trumps [sic] plan for excluding Muslim Immigration.") because the conventions in it are all wrong. The capitalization is all wrong and "Trumps" should be "Trump's"

Bet you can't (even if you could figure out how to embed a link).

Freder Frederson said...

Trump argues that Mexico has lots of money from its oil company, and implies he'll simply close the border to all legal traffic if Mexico does not agree to pay for the wall.


And that would work how? Even if he ditched NAFTA, which I doubt he could do without the approval of Congress), he would still have the WTO to deal with, and they would literally laugh at him.

John said...


Blogger Chuck said...

We require a blood test during the visa application process.

Got a link? I looked to see how we do it. Actually, in 2010 we did away with the HIV ban. Prior to that applicants for permanent immigrant status were required to provide a blood test.

For a regular visiting visa? Nope. I was not clear how they did it but perhaps just asked. If someone came in with HIV after saying "No", they could be charged with perjury.

Re Muslims, simply make anyone coming to the US from troublesome countries such as Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia etc prove that they are not Muslim. Otherwise ban all visitors from those countries.

How about the $5, Chuck? Are you going to cover me?

John Henry

Saint Croix said...

Watch it with me:

Need a "Trump the boyfriend" tag.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"And they would literally laugh at him"

And then acquiesce. Trump understands that a majority of Americans are comfortable telling foreigners to fuck off when American interests are at stake. Most foreigners understand this as well. They don't like it but they understand it.

Rusty said...

Freder Frederson said...
Which specific Trump policy ideas are "crazy"?


Building a wall along the entire length of the border with Mexico is a crazy idea, not to mention that making Mexico pay for it is nothing but meaningless and impossible bluster.

A gratuitous assertion which can be gratuitously denied.
Not it isn't.
Have you ever seen the boarder between Switzerland and France?

Freder Frederson said...

Have you ever seen the boarder between Switzerland and France?

Yes, I have. Have you? You do realize you can start skiing in France, ski over to Switzerland for lunch (and the Swiss are very accommodating, they will take either Swiss Francs or Euros) and be back in France for dinner. The only ID you will ever have to show is your ski pass to the lift attendants (actually not even that, the pass readers are all electronic now). You can do the same between Germany and Austria, Italy and Switzerland, etc.

grackle said...

And that would work how? Even if he ditched NAFTA, which I doubt he could do without the approval of Congress), he would still have the WTO to deal with, and they would literally laugh at him.

Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps Trump will take a page from the Obama playbook and pull out his Executive Action pen. The next POTUS after Trump can always rescind them if they want.

Rusty said...

Blogger Freder Frederson said...
Have you ever seen the boarder between Switzerland and France?

Yes, I have. Have you? You do realize you can start skiing in France, ski over to Switzerland for lunch (and the Swiss are very accommodating, they will take either Swiss Francs or Euros) and be back in France for dinner. The only ID you will ever have to show is your ski pass to the lift attendants (actually not even that, the pass readers are all electronic now). You can do the same between Germany and Austria, Italy and Switzerland, etc.

So you admit your assertion was crap.

Kirk Parker said...

Freder,

I'll take your word for it--after all, you are an expert on doubling-down-on-crazy.

Rusty said...

Switzerland has a boarder defense in depth. I remember driving from Orlean to Bern and was astounded that the boarder had a razor wire fence in the middle of a nice pasture area between France and Switzerland. You remember driving to your ski resort through those magnificent Swiss tunnels? The ones with the huge concrete awnings. Those awnings are there to seal the tunnels incase of a war. Switzerland, with very little effort on their part, can completely seal their country off from the rest of Europe.
I would also be surprised if you or I, Feder, had the resources to become Swiss citizens.
And there is the recent announcement by the Swiss defense minister that it might be a good idea if the general population start arming themselves.