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
Hillary didn't choke like she needed to avoid doing, and wasn't caught in any big corners. Her heavy debate prep showed, I think a bit too much, actually. There is a certain distance that is felt when she speaks, and after hearing Michelle Obama speak with such passion and genuine, heartfelt emotion earlier this week about female empowerment and the good of the nation, Hillary just doesn't connect a fourth as much. I don't doubt she cares about kids and family, as she's dedicated her entire adult career to those interests in law and government positions, it's just that when she talks at times-much like her running mate Tim Kaine-she comes off as a car salesman trying to pawn off a right clunker with two flat tires to a prospective buyer who is hesitant and knows better.
As for Trump, he didn't falter, and it was probably his best performance of the bunch. In the first debate his amateur nature showed in his mannerisms and the traps he fell in sprung too obviously by Clinton. In debate #2, his body language was the worst of all time in a televised presidential debate, and he came off as creepy and petty in his overall performance, while inarguably nailing a few reality show-styled zingers on Clinton for his bloodthirsty base to chomp on who eat that stuff for breakfast, brunch, lunch, dinner, and as a midnight snack.
In tonight's debate Trump got great hits in on Clinton a few times, and this time around, his posture and tone was in command, and he didn't hijack questions to set up ad hominem attacks on the Clintons as much as he usually does. It was a policy focused response from him on the whole, and I was surprised he didn't attack more, so he learned restraint in some ways and probably listened more to his team than usual in some respects. Trump's numbers would've improved far more in polling I think, if at the end he didn't resort to the big debacle surrounding his refusal to say if he would concede the victory to Clinton in the event of his loss. That moment was his time to show that for all the warts of the campaign and heated attacks between him and Clinton, he was still willing to man up and say, "you win, fair and square" if he ended up short of the mark in November. I think the recent remarks he made about a rigged election made him unable to turn around and say, "if this thing is fair, I'll concede it," tonight because in his mind, he doesn't view the race as fair. He now thinks the "hard work" he's put in for over a year and all the surprises and shake-ups he brought to the political system are now being undone and robbed from him, so he is now unable to even lie and tell the public he'll accept the loss. After all, he's a winner to a fault in his mind, and losing just doesn't even appear as a possibility in his head, he's so prideful of his movement. Hence the predicament he's into now, where he refuses to imagine another result other than a landslide on his side.
It'll be interesting to see how the polls shift after tonight. I think by most estimates Clinton led by 8 or 9 points before this, and I think after tonight, with Clinton playing it largely safe and Trump not goofing erroneously (beyond the election result gaffe), I think that lead will shrink to around 5 points. At this point, it's stupid to make predictions of any kind though, as terrifying as that is to admit to oneself.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/
and just a few fact-checking site on the candidates:
http://www.politifact.com/
http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:ab844c82a9e342f489b376aa53f12981
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/presidential-debate-fact-check-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/story?id=42906344
But you shouldn't worry too much, Hillary will win this in a landslide. That was clear since day one.
RE: The debate. Props to Chris Wallace. He did a first-class job as moderator. We actually got some substantive policy discussion for a bit there.
Trump has finally, completely gone off the rails with his whole "the election is rigged and I'm not necessarily going to accept the results. I'll keep you in suspense," answer. He contradicts his own running mate and his daughter with this. He confounds and upsets his own party. He insults the entire American electoral process. I'd say, "Stick a fork in him, he's done," but that activity would foul a perfectly good fork. Some people have suggested that he never really wanted to be president, he was just trying to increase the value of the Trump brand...but he just buried the Trump brand in the bovine fertilizer for good & for all. There are going to be an awful lot of hangovers in Trumpland this morning...and it couldn't happen to a more deserving crew.
He's already got a stick up his ass, I'd say that's enough.
Nice to see Kellyanne Conway back in public after almost a week of hiding out. Those 9 women coming out with their sex charges must have turned her off. MAKE AMERICA GROPE AGAIN. Likewise for someone who proudly proclaimed in the beginning, their money was on Trump. Come out from under the covers.
His brand is solid among the "deplorables." Despite everything Trump has said and done, he is continuing to pull 40% of the electorate. His next move is to turn this candidacy into a movement: TV, internet, social media, etc. If you think his campaign is scary, wait until we get a load of his BS being marketed, branded, and sold to those thirsty for blood. It'll make the propaganda on Fox News look tame.
A third party could eventually rise out of all this, which would be bad for the Republicans.
One can only hope the Republicans will have both houses so Clinton will be a lame duck President and can't realise her wicked plans.
What a moronic statement, you should be worried about the middle east an d the mess created by the last republican President who also used the silly sentiment ïf you are not in favour of us you are against us/"
Once again you show with your statement how little the US understands the world, especially the senators who are driven by a blinded pro Americanism that has done the world so often more damage than good. Especially since the both houses are ruled by the war industry instead of sensible politicians.
With Clinton I fear less war than orange shouty man who represents the worst in American, ignorance ruled by stupidity and greed.
Nuclear war or lewd talk? Hmm, tough decision.
I corrected your statement.
;)
The moronic statement comes from a Swiss, I'm not American.
Ironically, there is an element of the Republican party (namely relatively new congressmen and women from the Tea Party fringe) who are against nation building and interfering in foreign nations. There was thankfully a lot of pushback from both the house and the senate (both parties) when Obama tried to get his bombing approval after the red line was crossed in 2013. The usual jokers (McCain and Graham) were out there trying to sell it, but most sensible members of congress told them to stuff it because their constituents wanted nothing to do with it.
So if they're going to start a war (it's likely), they will do it either without approval this time or by pulling the humanitarian card.
Many of you have probably seen this. Bush's letter to Bill Clinton, as he left office and Clinton was about to start his first term as president.