Replies

Then simply place a call down south specifying that they can either agree to pay for the wall or face hundreds of federal employees doing everything they can to stop a flow of billions of dollars in hard cash flowing into their country. I think their choice would be obvious at that point.

So do I. I think they tell him to go pound sand.

There are enormous roadblocks to actually putting an effective stop to those remittances, and even then, you've got to put yourself in the position of a Mexican politician. Knuckling under to Trump's threats would be instant political suicide. There's 0% chance of that happening before the U.S. actually shows that it is truly capable of shutting down illegal remittances, which I don't think they could. The most common workaround would just be using legal immigrants to send the money home.

Look, here's my point. There is a lot of public support for building a wall. It's a good issue, and good policy as far as I'm concerned.

But forcing Mexico to pay for the Wall just sounds like an empty boast to a lot of people, and I think it ignores the political realities in Mexico. National pride simply wouldn't permit them to knuckle under.

There's nothing wrong with making a threat if you're prepared to back it up, but in this case, I think that's where it falls down. The Mexicans will never agree to that (which is why it would have to be a U.S. imposed tax for which Mexican agreement isn't required), and Trump will lose his first showdown with another government. I'm sick of weak Presidents, and I don't want that to happen.

Look, here's my point. There is a lot of public support for building a wall. It's a good issue, and good policy as far as I'm concerned...But forcing Mexico to pay for the Wall just sounds like an empty boast to a lot of people, and I think it ignores the political realities in Mexico. National pride simply wouldn't permit them to knuckle under.

Horrible politics in the US. Trump is changing an issue, constructing a wall/barrier of some sort which is supported by a large majority of Americans to a pis*ing contest over who pays for it. With Trumps ego heavily invested. With the distinct possibility of turning a winning issue into a loser. Like the abortion issue. With a majority of Americans opposed to abortion beyond some definition of viability. 43 states have such laws. Rather than taking advantage of that majority support, he changes the issue to whether mothers should go to jail for an abortion under "illegal" circumstances. Changed his mind, but that won't stop the ads this fall. Quotes around illegal since in those 43 states only the provider commits a crime, not the mother.

I get sick of people basing their opinions on what they think he can or can’t do. I could just see a Dem in 2008 poo-poo-ing the Obama campaign, “he’ll never pass healthcare reform, way too complicated, and the Republicans will never go for it!”

It’s a campaign, politicians talk about what they want to do, judge them based on that, not what you think they’ll actually be able to do.