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
The problem is that a lot of the people don't know that about Trump. Those of us here do, but for the most part I'd say the discussion that's been going on in this thread (which has, amazingly stayed amicable and level-headed for the most part, a first for political discussion on an internet forum, certainly a Bond-related one) has been much more informed than what you'd get talking to the average Joe on the street.
It also was just a good symbolic gesture by Romney for those who are anti-Trump. There hasn't been a central figure to rally around in the wake of Trump's march through the Republican party, and Reince Priebus hasn't offered any leadership, nor have Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, the highest-ranking party officials currently in government.
So, for better or worse, the last Republican nominee, who in some ways can still be considered the leader or standard bearer for the party until a new nominee is chosen, decided to step up and give some cover to those running against Trump as well as give the 65% of those opposed to Trump a central figure to rally around, at least for a moment. He also could give others at least a reason to pause and re-examine.
Up to this point, it's really just been the media (which Republican voters generally distrust) and the other candidates taking shots at Trump, often with obvious personal political goals fueling them. Romney offers a voice for the dissent that isn't directly tied to getting votes funneled into his camp, so that may saw some people. Even if it only sways a handful, then I'd say his doing what he did was worth it.
What will work though most likely are the massive $$ that is going to be spent in key states on attack ads against Trump. My understanding is that the Koch's will not try to take him down, but there are others who will throw the kitchen sink at him over the next two weeks.
I'm really curious to see if and whether he can withstand this barrage. It will be a real test of his character, temperament, and the strength of his support.
I would like to see him step up and and earn the following he has garnered. Mature into a better, more polished candidate. Grow up basically.
If he can't, then it's best that he is vanquished, but only later in the campaign imho, after he has done more damage to the establishment money (let them spend away, the rich 'f's).
Unless there is a smoking gun (oh, Felix Leiter & James Bond we need you in the U.S. right now!!) ... I don't see him changing his attitude or words much at all, nor do I think will many people change their support for him. Does he need to show detailed plans for any of his ideas? Explain specifically his ideas for foreign policy? ETC. No. They just don't care - he is different, talks tough, let's give him a chance because we are so fed up with "regular" politicians and the system (and because it has snowballed - everybody jumps on the bandwagon and stays on the bandwagon without a lot of in depth thinking). So why on earth would he change much at all?
It will be interesting, and no doubt continue to be entertaining to a certain degree, whatever develops over the next few months. I hope that smoking gun is found. Because almost anything that comes out of Trump's mouth - no matter how racist, ignorant, disrespectful to our own country or others - does not matter to many, so it seems. Lack of experience does not matter. So is there a smoking gun? Something big enough to stop his supporters in their tracks now? I don't know.
Well he's hiring them, he's not saying they could stay here permanently. Obviously a little hypocritical on his part.
The Gang of Eight, maybe it was never voted on, but it was obvious a lot of Republicans were for it. Otherwise you would not see the concerted effort by the establishment Republicans to get Trump out.
Good points regarding the "wounds" comment. I get what you are saying. But again, this is why Trump is so popular by many Republicans, and a fair amount of Democrats and independents too. Because he is different and he wants to shake things up on both sides.
It would take over four years and at least $10B to construct such a wall. And it wouldn't even work to stop immigration.
As an aside; I am following the debate with the live commentary by New York Times (I cannot watch the debate). Here is a recent comment (not the public, one of the assigned NY Times folks covering this):
Maggie Haberman
This is not a good debate for Trump. That having been said, it has never mattered before.
Bingo.
Haberman was on Charlie Rose yesterday. Interesting discussion there on the Trump phenomenon.
The last debate saw Trump's numbers go down a little bit, as he was projected to win more states than he ultimately did on Super Tuesday. This debate has been even worse for him, so there's reason to believe that these issues are starting to stick to him. That said, it still might be too late.
But, the only two people who come off well in this debate are John Kasich and Ted Cruz (as much as it pains me to say that). Marco Rubio and Trump should be disqualified based on their behavior tonight. This is a debate for President of the United States, not the a kindergarten playground fight that this has devolved into between Marco Rubio and Donald Trump. That those two men can act like this while running for the highest office in the land and then turn around and ask me to vote for them just makes me want to vomit.
Essentially the moderators allow questions and back and forth to escalate when what they should do when candidates get off track is shut off the mic. Very simple policy to implement but then no one would show up.
I'll answer each point.
1. I have to respectably disagree with you on this one. The world is a lot more dangerous now with far more radical Islamic terrorists than we saw before 9/11. Or at the very least, more now willing to act. The borders need to be enforced better, whether with a wall or not. I don't think many people would disagree with that.
2. Military spending has been cut quite a bit under Obama, and a lot of equipment is outdated. That said though, we can debate on the numbers. We still have a strong military, but it needs to be maintained. Regarding method of warfare, see some of my previous posts. Nation building won't cut it, and maybe bombing won't completely stop the problem. But selected quick strikes would help. If we know exactly who is supplying the weapons, where the training camps are, where the weapons are stored, etc., then some strategic quick strikes would work. And again, no nation building, and no more neocons. Again, this is one of the appeals of trump. If he fails, then someone else will be voted in, but no reason not to try a different route this time.
3. Not sure I want to legalize drugs as this can be tempting to those who are not on drugs but can't afford them, but at the very least, no more jailing those who are addicted to drugs. There's not enough room in the jails, and like you said, we need to concentrate on the drug dealers, including tightening the borders so they don't sneak in here.
4. Great points, but again, we would have to debate the number. I don't want cutting the military at the expense of our defense. But there is, like in any government agency, places to cut a lot of waste.
5. Again, good reasons why Trump is popular. He is not part of the Republican establishment, and has been on record many times that he would support our vets. I don't by this argument that the Republicans are a party of the rich as they attempt to lower taxes on the middle and lower classes, but these cuts tend to get blocked by the Democrats a lot. And yes, small businesses need taxes to be cut so they can survive. Large corporations on the other hand need to make sure that they pay their taxes, especially the ones that get away with not paying anything. That said, they need to be low enough to be competitive with other world nations so companies don't continue leaving the U.S. to take advantage of lower taxes in Europe and Mexico (as examples) and taking all of their jobs with them.
Excellent! Well said! It's all about how Trump wants to solve these problems rather than just saying we have these problems in the first place.
Thirty second rebuttals don't lead to name calling. Immaturity and childishness leads to that. Thirty second rebuttals don't lead to shouting over each other, even when told to stop. And if they don't like the rules, then they don't have to agree with them. Those rules are agreed upon by the campaigns beforehand. If they don't like it, reshape the rules. This debate is so far beneath the office that they seek to be elected to.
Good. Then it's time to get to work on it.
To clarify though, he needs to take as much time to get this done as is needed. And the $10B he said himself that will be needed can be taken from the $58B trade imbalance we have with Mexico. I know Trump is a great negotiator, but even he will need some luck to pull that off. But if there is one person who can do it, it would be him.
Now you don't know for sure that it wouldn't stop (and please use the correct term) illegal immigration. A wall that is built high enough will at the very least severely limit illegals from coming into this country, and especially the drug dealers and terrorists. Israel built a wall, and it has severely deterred the suicide bombers and other terrorists from coming into their country. That's a good thing, and I don't know why people have such an objection to walls.
The process is not well run.
Having said that, this debate is actually pretty substantive and I think all the candidates are doing a reasonable job up there. The attacks are part of the normal process.
They have been stopping the candidates when they've said incorrect things. Megyn Kelly stopped Trump several times when he tried to lie his way over top of her.
Not having more than thirty seconds doesn't automatically lead to hurling insults at each other. My not having more than thirty seconds to do something doesn't automatically lead to me calling my opponent "little" or a "con man".
There have been flashes of substance in this debate, and thankfully it seems to have settled down at this point, but the opening hour theatrics between Marco Rubio and Donald Trump. It takes a great deal of effort to make Ted Cruz look like the reasonable one on a stage. They've managed that tonight.
They've decided to stop the name calling at this point, and that's why it's under control for the most part.
But, if they can't figure out a way to behave in a situation like this, why should I expect them to in high level security discussions with Russia or any of our allies? This part of the process is easy compared to the actual job. If they can't handle this with decorum, why should I assume they'll be able to do it when actual lives are on the line?
Plus you had some early debates run by a supposed conservative cable outlet that sounded like they were running a reality show! The nerve of Megyn Kelly going after Trump early on based on what he did on the Apprentice! We watch debates so we can learn something about the candidates. Not to watch the moderators make news during the debate! I used to respect Megyn a lot. Not any more!