It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
-Pump money into defense while eliminating waste is what he's said. There is a lot of waste in the procurement process as it is
-cut taxes works. It depends on what taxes. Corporate? Middle class? Or top of the pack? It's a matter of balance, as well as streamlining the voluminous tax code
The deficits actually soared under this president too, although I understand he had a financial crisis of epic proportions to deal with. He did not address the bank problem and no democrat can with an obstructionist congress.
As I said earlier, I think only a republican president can make the American political system work again. The congress will obstruct any democrat, and especially Clinton. The wounds are deep.
The "wounds" are imaginary ones made up by the Republican leadership to justify them not doing their jobs. And I say this as someone who would identify as a Republican. The actions of my party have been nothing short of shameful over the past four years.
The only appeal of Donald Trump is that he might end up destroying the entire government system. That's his only appeal. It's a shame that we can't get that kind of potential from a candidate with a realistic chance of winning that doesn't spout out bigoted rhetoric on a nearly daily basis.
If Mitch McConnell won't hold hearings on Obama's SCOTUS nominee, then he and everyone who supports his efforts should be impeached. If I were Obama, I'd troll the Congress and nominate McConnell himself to the Supreme Court. It would be hilarious to watch him have to decide whether or not to block his own nomination. Either way he'd look like an even bigger idiot than he already is.
What they're worried about is Trump on the top of the ticket may kill some of their congressional election seats. I sure hope so.
The only way to fix the Republican party is to keep electing Democrats to the presidency and allow them to continue the obstructionism. Eventually the people will become fed up with it and revolt against them, which we're seeing somewhat with the rise of Drumpf. The attitude that is resulting in his rise will eventually, if allowed to fester longer, will either shame the current Republican lawmakers into doing their jobs, or find the electorate voting them out of office in favor of Democrats and Independents, or find those members forced out of office in the primary process like what we saw with Majority Leader Eric Cantor.
I was all for the idea of ousting Cantor, but it needed to be with someone who was 1) moderate and 2) qualified for the job.
I totally agree with you on Cruz. I think he is a decent guy, but I don't think his farther right stance would win him the election. Again as I said above, I am a Christian, but even I find his religious rhetoric off putting.
With Trump, I don't think you have to worry about abortions or gay rights. I think he is even liberal on those two issues, but regardless, his "big three" issues that he will be spending his time on if he wins the presidency would be the borders, terrorism and the economy. There may be a few far right social conservative voters who may complain and moan about his social issue beliefs, but too bad. You can't please everyone, and right now, the issues I mentioned that Trump would concentrate on are the hot button issues for most people.
Oh please! Again with the fallacy that republicans and conservatives want to keep non-whites out of this country! First of all, several republicans signed on to the Gang of Eight bill that gave illegals amnesty, so right there your statement doesn't hold water. Second, regarding Trump who is against amnesty, he is against illegal immigrants coming in here. He has no problem bringing in non-white immigrants who are hard workers, will benefit the U.S. economy, and who come in here legally.
What part of the word illegal do you not understand?!
Since you chose not to respond to my illegal immigrant post above, I will try this. The reason we had a deficit soar under GW Bush was because he spent (especially towards the end) like a drunken sailor in the same style that the democrats spend. Some may have been warranted due to the economy tanking, but I certainly hold him accountable for the increase in the deficit as well.
But this brings me to the rest of your post. If you feel that the U.S. is not in danger from drug dealers and terrorists that come through the border illegally, then you have been completely misinformed. Common sense says that when the borders aren't enforced, the worst of the worst can come walking in here pretty easily. And the reason we have to strengthen our defense is in case another major terrorist attack happens here. Like I said above, no more nation building or neoconservatives in office. But we still need a strong military to deter others from trying anything stupid, and we will use it if need be. I don't understand why people don't get that there is a price to pay if we still want to be the free society we are.
The "wounds" as you call them are not imaginary. You sincerely don't think we have a problem with the border issue? Even if I don't listen to the talking heads from both parties, it's just common sense to believe that when we can't enforce our borders, bad people can come through here every day. Plus many good intentioned people coming here illegally for a better life are still taxing our hospitals and schools to the point where our government has no funding to pay for all of those people. So to say these are "imaginary wounds" is not a very accurate assessment on your part. And for someone who claims to identify as a Republican, you certainly don't sound like one in relation to where you stand on the issues.
Was that the Gang of Eight bill that was never voted on, never passed and that Marco Rubio flipped on? It was stopped by House Republicans. Don't confuse activity with accomplishment.
As to Donald Trump(a serial adulterer) and the undocumented aliens issue. He has no problem hiring undocumented workers to work on his current Old Post Office project in Washington. But some prefer not to look in mirrors before they speak.
If you go back and read the post I was responding to, you'd see you're taking me out of context with the "wounds" point.
And, to your point, yes, we do have a problem with border security. Between 1981 and 2008, we had 20 years of Republican leadership in the White House. Did anything get done about border security then? No, I don't think that it did. The "wounds" comment was about how the Republicans feel about the Democrats under Obama. Obama is not the reason that we don't have border security. Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama are part of the reason we don't have border security. The bigger reasons are both the Democrats and the Republicans. So, yes, the "wounds" are imaginary as they relate to the Republicans' feelings towards the Democrats. It's not the Democrats fault that we don't have border security. It's both side's fault, and it's not a new phenomenon that happened in the last eight years, which is what the "wounds" comment I was responding to was about, not the issue of border security.
"I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally,". President Ronald Reagan 1984
That quote from Reagan shows just what a fraud Ted Cruz is.
I don't know if I'd agree that W hasn't shown up because he's afraid of his friends. Within the Republican party, he's still pretty popular, and has undergone something of an image rehabilitation. He's also extremely skilled at personal politics, and can get someone on his side in a face-to-face conversation even if they vehemently disagree with him and his policies, so I don't see it as that. I just believe that he's sincere in not wanting to be out there second-guessing Obama, as he's said many times when asked to comment on various things, and he's done more than just skip the conventions. He rarely does interviews as well.
As someone that identifies mainly with the Republicans, I wouldn't necessarily say that they have little legacy to brag about, although such accomplishments are in short supply in recent years. Reagan, despite some questionable economic policies, did usher the world into the post-Cold War era. Granted, that was helped along by his predecessors, but virtually everything a president does has the table set for it by those that came before. Eisenhower, a Republican, authorized the establishment of NASA, setting the table for JFK to call for a mission to the moon.
That said, it's embarrassing to associate with the current Republican party. The leaders of the party are abysmal. Mitch McConnell should be impeached if he goes ahead with blocking Obama's SCOTUS appointment, and this is coming from someone who doesn't really want to see another liberal judge on the court. It's the president's constitutional duty to appoint justices to vacant seats, and the last time I checked, Obama is the president, and McConnell has a constitutional duty to call for a vote and discussion about the nominee.
The problem with the Republican party today is, mainly, that the, as Donald Trump would like to say, "good ones" have their voices drowned out by the insane asylum that others in the party, like Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell, are running.
There is no greater waste than what we find in defense spending. Don't go thinking the Repubs hate government spending; they only hate government spending that doesn't make their friends rich.
1. The borders are not any more or less enforced now than they have been for decades. So why, all of a sudden, are the cons having panic attack over this? It's called "perception" and not reality. This is the problem with Republicans: they operate on a perception and not a reality. Take...
2. Defense as another example. The U.S. spends more on defense than the next ten industrialized nations COMBINED. And yet...it's not enough. Of course, problem is, as is always the case with Republicans, they don't have the sense to realize that paradigms have shifted and that trying to fight a "method of warfare" is not the same as fighting an actual country. So all of that "spending" in Iraq and Afghanistan got us NOWHERE. You can't fight "terrorism" with bombs. But that's a whole other matter. Point is, almsot every expert on Middle East politics said that toppling Huessein was only going to create instability in the region. Guess what? It did just that. We are already paying a steep steep steep price for "defense." We don't need to spend more. The only reason to do so is to line the pockets of defense contractors. Who then take that money and use it to further influence politicians.
3. Legalize drugs. You do have to worry about drug dealers.
4. Instead, cut defense spending and put it into infrastructure. This creates jobs and does so for the betterment of everyone. Roads. Bridges. The grid. Also: high speed rail, new technologies, solar energy. The list goes on. The U.S. has (had?) an opportunity to lead the way on new forms of power and mass transit and sh*t the bed because Conservatives are slaves to big oil. We were once the leaders: from the automobile to air travel to putting a man on the moon. Now? The neo cons' lack of vision (and lack of knowledge of science) will ultimately destroy us.
5. You can't pump billions into defense without paying for it. GW CUT taxes and waged war at the same time...and what happened? In reality, what Repubs want is to line the pockets of the wealthy on phony "we need to increase defense spending" claims and steal through taxes on the middle and lower classes. Furthermore, you can't wage wars without also willing to spend money to nurse and help our vets afterward. The Repubs call themselves "patriots" and then dump on the men and women who sacrifice their health for the "cause" the Repubs want. It's simply comical.
A: They can unite themselves and wholeheartedly support Trump to get the Presidency.
B: They can continue their self-destruction and kiss the Presidency goodbye for at least one more decade and possibly lose the next mid-term elections as well.
I don't see anything wrong with any of that. Just because the borders haven't been secure to date doesn't mean they shouldn't be secure. That's just common sense.
The key with Trump will be his VP choice. I don't think it's a stretch, given his temperament and disregard of anything that stands for decency, that he could be impeached if he is elected, especially if the Democrats win Congress during his time in office. Or it could be done by the Republican establishment looking to take their party back from him.
And it's common sense that Mexico is going to pay for those 'more secure borders' (you make Trump sound like a nuanced Obama, when he really said he wants to have.....walls....WALLS).
Look, I am aware that Trump is the product of a violent neo-conservative GOP. But there's a difference between saying things as a marketing instrument for votes.....or saying things as a promise to realistically bring them into practice.
I will be happy if finally the days are over that people vote for what politicians stand for, instead of voting solely for ranting and political incorrectness. And call me a traditionalist, but political incorrectness never solved real problems. In the long end they only made things worse. There's plentiful historical evidence for that.
A vote for Trump is a vote for thinking with your balls.
Trump is not a product of a violent neo-conservative GOP. He is the product of a failed political system. A system that has failed the ordinary voter. Like Sanders. Just appealing to the other side.
His argument for 'wall's is a caricature for secure borders. At the end of the day, he can do it with a wall (which is more symbolic than anything else) or he can do it by stricter border enforcement and control to prevent 'illegal' immigration. That is something the American public want (not just Republicans). If he's president, how he goes about implementing it will be the key.
You may like to think with your balls, but please don't make general comments about the many who have decided to show support for Trump. It's insulting.
It's happening everywhere in the 'classic West's:
- Donald Trump, USA
- Geert Wilders, Netherlands
- Viktor Orban, Hungary
- Nigel Farrell, UK
- Marine le Pèn, France
- Gold Crescent, Greece
- Pegada, Germany
- Filip DeWinter, Belgium
- Pía Kjaergaard, Denmark
- FPÖ, Austria
- Beate in Poland
- Finland
- Sweden
Want me to mention more? Perhaps these people themselves are not pure racists. But ask yourself what racists would vote for. That's the real problem.
Do you just think he's just trying to press buttons and even if he is, that someone would resort to some of the things he's said why would a country even entertain him as their President?
Do you believe that all of his racist, bigoted and sexist rhetoric is fine and that is the kind of man you want as your Commandering Chief?
In losing, he will ultimately win.
He's not unlike Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins, playing the Penthouse Urchin to conceal his nobility.