I remember more than a decade ago regularly encountering arguments that building a wall along the US-Mexico border would be a prohibitively expensive undertaking. It was a risible argument then and it's a risible argument now.
Trump says he can do it for under $12 billion. Skeptics say it'll cost upwards of $25 billion. Financially ruinous!
For some perspective, that's one day of current federal spending on the low end and three days on the high end. Three days! Factoring in maintenance costs for the next couple of decades could bring the total price tag to five days worth of government spending--almost a whole week's worth of government profligacy to construct a 50-foot high concrete barrier along the entire border and maintain it for twenty years! (It won't actually have to run along the full 1,951 miles of land border, of course, since there are natural barriers that preclude human crossing without the need for any additional artifice).
Trump has begun alluding to this in his speeches:
WEIRDOs tend to operate in a moral universe where anything that cannot be justified by an appeal to Kantian principles is to be dismissed. When a fecund, expansive West was conquering the world that approach was viable, laudable even. With Europeans on their way to having comprised one-quarter of the world's population in 1950 to less than one-tenth of it by 2050 while non-European and thus non-WEIRDO populations immigrate into European countries in massive numbers, the approach has rapidly become suicidal.
Trump offers a new paradigm (at least for those of European descent--it's standard operating procedure for non-Europeans all over the world): Principles are out, interests are in. He doesn't articulate it so explicitly, but this approach is detectable in virtually everything he says. For example:
Here's another example from the same speech, this time referencing article 9 of the Japanese constitution:
One of the most significant realignments taking place in this presidential election is the partisan reversal in which of the two major party nominees support military interventionism, nation-building, and cultural imperialism and which party nominee opposes it.
Hillary has backed every major military intervention the US has embarked on over the last two decades--Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria. For guys like John Kasich, that wasn't meddlesome enough--he thinks the US should treat a Russian attack on Finland as an attack on America itself. It's why the neocons have so much animus for Trump and why many of them are backing Hillary. Conversely, it's why libertarians like Walter Block are supporting Trump.
Here's Trump horrifying warmongers everywhere by nonchalantly noting that Russia isn't an enemy:
Finally, some fine shitlordery on display. Another reminder that physiognomy is real (the stencil-necked, low-T twerp holding the microphone is the video host, not an actual Trump supporter):