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
At least Trump is touting a foreign policy platform of carpet bombing, which Cruz has been going on and on about. Just my opinion, but presidential candidates should not be campaigning on a platform of committing war crimes, which carpet bombing is under the Geneva Conventions.
I can assure you that GWB is not popular in South Carolina. There's a reason that Hillary wheels out Bill whenever she has the chance but Jeb doesn't do the same will GWB: the GWB legacy is toxic.
I thought he did a really good job at the CNN Town Hall tonight.
I don't know why the rest of the party doesn't rally around him instead of some of the others. He's been away from Washington long enough to not really be a part of the obstructionist culture that everyone is railing against in this cycle but still has the experience and aptitude to do the job.
For what it's worth here's my rankings in order of how I would vote today:
(1) Kasich (common sense, middle ground, plain folk persona)
(2) Trump (yes, Trump, because he is more middle ground than ppl give him credit for)
...
(3) Rubio (can we say, groomed special interest robot?)
(4) Carson (killed his campaign when he tried to make Trump-like statements)
(5) Sanders (though would financially kill the US, at least his heart is in the right place)
(6) Bush (too many good 'ole boys propping up this puppet)
...
...
...
...
(7) Cruz (the republican version of Obama, the hyper-partisan candidate)
...
...
...
...
...
...
(Infinity) Clinton (hell...smokescreens, elitist, and partisan)
Regarding Bernie's ability to pay for what his plans: The US is the only major Western country without a value added tax. If that was put in place (and the funds used for proper purposes rather than lining pockets of special interests), the deficit could be reduced dramatically and 'consumption' reduced. Same goes for its gas/petrol taxes (amongst the lowest of any Western country).
Ironically however, it is Donald Trump who has been mentioning waste in the military (he did it last night on the CNN town hall). I have not heard that from any other candidate. He is also the only one talking about the crummy trade deals that have been negotiated and the fact that China in particular is taking advantage of the US for its benefit.
Regarding Hillary - my issue with her, apart from the fact that she is beholden to too many special interests (including numerous shameless ass kissers within her own party who she will have to pay off for the support) is that she has exhibited horrendous judgement in her career, including on a personal level. That to me is a critical attribute of leadership - the ability to make decisions strategically and looking at the big picture. George Bush did the same thing (bad judgement).
Regarding Bernie - his intentions are pure, but there is no way he is going to be able to get the changes he wants through. Sure, he has the support of the people, but as Obama found out, that's not enough. Not when you go up against the partisan Congress with Republican obstructionists.
Sadly, it is only Trump who has the ability to push through necessary changes imho, because he will be able to (finally) get the Republicans to come along to his side if he wins the nomination, and that will allow far more sweeping legislative changes to be made.
He is perhaps not the best candidate, but he is ultimately the candidate who can make changes happen.
I tend to be among those who believe he will pivot nicely to the centre if he is able to win the Repub nom (keep in mind how difficult that is without going extreme) - but I realize that there is an element of the electorate that will never like him. His policies are actually reasonably centrist - the rest is just hyperbole to win the primaries. He isn't quite what he is made out to be.
The thing about him which I find remarkable is to a degree he is like Teflon. The best politicians have been like that - Clinton (Bill), Reagan and to a lesser degree, Obama.
I just don't know how serious he is. I wouldn't be surprised if he drops out just before the end of it for health or other reasons and throws his support behind Rubio or someone else.
Trump at the top of the ticket and Rubio as the VP pick? Sure fire winner in November.
However in foreign policy the president largely has a free hand. Recall that he's the direct supervisor of the department state. The only things the congress can do are refuse to support military action after 60 days, refuse to approve a treaty the president has signed, or withhold funds. There's considerable pressure on them not to do those things however.
If Bernie Sanders is elected, very little of his domestic agenda will be passed. Even if he isn't bought by special interests, most of the congress in both parties is. So his domestic agenda isn't particularly important to me.
What concerns me is that he doesn't appear to know much about foreign policy. He doesn't even have any full time foreign policy advisors-POLITICO found that several of the people he cited as seeking advice on foreign policy said they've only met with him once or twice. He's been right about some things that Hillary was wrong about-the war in Iraq and intervention in Libya for example-but I have to wonder if those are a matter of him just being generally anti-interventionist and getting lucky rather than gauging the merits of those particular actions correctly.
Clinton has the benefit of hundreds of foreign policy experts advising her. She's been wrong about very big questions (although some things she had to advocate has Secretary of State). But when I think about who I'd like negotiating with Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, or Hassan Rouhani I can't help thinking I'd prefer her.
She also understands that the political world, like nature, abhors a vacuum. If the US draws down its influence on the world, as both the Rand Pauls and Bernie Sanders of the world would like, someone will replace it. The only question is who. Russia in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (and reasserting itself in the Middle East), Iran in the middle east, China in East Asia (and increasingly in Africa). The values of those countries are not particularly ones that I want gaining influence at the expense of liberal democracy.
=D>
http://www.reasonstovotetrump.com/
Thankfully, though, it looks like Cruz has lost quite a bit of momentum heading into the southern primaries. If he can't do better than third in South Carolina, a state with a constituency that should cater to a Cruz victory, then he might have some trouble in the other southern states not named Texas.
I think he'll have to pick someone that hasn't been running for the nomination, unless he goes for Kasich, who has generally stayed out of the negative fray so far.
There seems to be a friendlier air between Trump and Rubio though. He didn't even take a shot at him after the infamous debate robot repetition glitch, despite the media goading him on.
You're correct though - next couple of weeks are going to get intense because the big money has limited time to take out 'The Donald' (aka 'Mr. Trump') before he becomes inevitable.
Heck, he's already started to do this, as I saw a story where he just questioned Rubio's eligibility for the presidency just like he did with Cruz.
I must have been in a car accident, and am in a drug induced coma... this can't be real....