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
Plus he will single-handedly kill all the establishment Republicans that I've done nothing the last 30 years as well. And that is a good thing.
I couldn't agree with you more about destabilization of the Middle East by our previous so-called republican president. As I've said before, there's a great divide within Republican Party in regards to those who are neoconservatives/establishment republicans, and those who aren't. No more neocons! They have no clue what they're doing and they have no business trying to rebuild countries, no matter how noble a concept that may be, if said countries do not want to accept that. That I absolutely agree with you 100%.
However, are you sure that Obama has really been doing that good a job keeping our border safe? Sure, we haven't had any major terrorist attacks since he took office, and I do give him credit for that, but perhaps more of that is credited to a hard-working FBI and CIA who are doing a great job monitoring things. I still think though a lot of trouble makers are coming through the border, and it's been proven that there are a lot of porous areas within the border where people can easily sneak through. And I'm talking more the Mexican border than the Canadian border, but I'm sure people can sneak through Canada as well. However the vast majority of the problems are due to the porous Mexican border. So again, is that border really is tight as you think it may be SaintMark, or is it just we have people within our borders doing a great job monitoring possible terrorists once they are here? And by the way, don't forget we've had a few "nuisance" terrorist attacks in the last year here that have killed a fair number of innocent people. Even one person killed is too many of course. And that's something we all have to remember.
I personally don't care what the rest of the world thinks about our presidents. Although I don't think a lot of the world is going to consider him a dangerous clown either. Trump may have a rough mouth sometimes, but at the end of the day I think he's a better negotiator than a lot of people are giving them credit for. He would not have built up his huge business if it was not a good negotiator.
And regarding us having a huge army, I don't get why people have such an issue with this. We have a large army to deter other countries from starting any conflict with us. We will always have threats from countries like China, North Korea, or various Middle Eastern countries that can easily threaten us or our neighbors with some very dangerous weapons. So a small army is not going to get the job done defending us and our neighbors from countries that have no other intent but to kill people. Again, as I said in the previous posts, we should not be going into other countries for nation building, or for the purpose of killing people that can destabilize a region. But at the very least we need to have a big army at our disposal in case somebody decides to threaten us. I don't get why so many people complain about that.
Is it possible chris that Bernie may go down because people realize that what he wants to do will do more damage to our economy and freedom, rather then a fear from what conservatives may be saying? In other words, maybe some credit should be given to the voters in making the right decision, whichever way they decide to go.
Not judging Mr. Sanders in any way, but don't you think, that nominating him is like giving away the Presidency to the Republicans for free.
Against Trump, Rubio or Cruz, Sanders wouldn't stand a chance.
I can't imagine, that the Democrats are that stupid. Nominating Hillary would practically guarantee them the Presidency.
IMHO of course.
Ok, didn't know that.
http://pollingreport.com/
This is a great resource that I've used for years.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/
It'll be interesting if it's Clinton v Trump, as you have two people running for president who are loathed by at least half the population.
I have no clue what you are talking about. You may want to reference the post that prompted your response.
Bottom line, both Trump (if it's him) and Hillary (it's definitely her) have an opportunity to turn around their negatives with careful messaging and appopriate positioning.
With Trump, there is a larger chance that such turnaround can take place, because at this moment there are still several Republicans who have not come round to the prospect of him as the nominee. Moreover, a lot of the negatives he is attracting are due to hyperbole from his own statements and misconceptions about his position on the issues. He has time to turn that around. He is still the wild-card in the election.
With Hillary, there is also a large portion of the public who don't view her positively, although they view her as a history making figure. The thing is, I don't see her negatives turning around so easily. She is more of a fixture, being in the political circuit for so long. Views are far more hardened about her candidacy, in my view.
If it's Trump, he really has to learn how to articulate his position on the issues in a clearer and more intelligent fashion, and with more meat on the bones. He also has to improve his debate skills considerably. Moreover, he has to learn how to withstand negative attacks without going on the offensive (what's happening between him and clown act Rubio right now is downright disgusting and shameful -wet pants discussion and all). If he can do that (and I fully expect him to), I think one will see a major turnaround to his side in the general. If he can't then he is going down hard.
Clinton also owns the Super Delegates which is a big number of delegates, usually all Democratic Party operatives and almost all pro Clinton. People forget that American voters are essentially moderate. They do not go for far right (Cruz) or far left (Bernie) candidates for President in the general election. The primaries can start off with candidates on the wings, but the more moderate types almost always ultimately take the nomination. Romney was the moderate in the last election, and Obama, other than the obvious race fact, still presented himself as a moderate. In the current contest, it is well known that he is privately backing Clinton as she mimics almost all of his views.
The debates will be epic and Clinton goes in with a big advantage. She is awful, and very shrill when giving speeches, but she is highly skilled in debates. She comes across as calm and very knowledgeable on all issues, unlike Trump. Trump is very cunning and smart, and was very moderate until his recent stands which he has switched up on. But his temperament will do him in in the debates. He won't survive them if he just keep going for personal attacks. He will need to radically change his debate tactics, and get comfortable with discussing issues in much more detail than just sound bites. Unlike last elections, thus time the debates will really decide the election.
But, stuff always happens. Somebody can get ill, or another serious terrorist attack in the US could change everything.
What you explained here only shows, how he is totally not suited as president. He is nothing but a very dangerous ammunition, ready to explode, whenever he doesnt get his will. Now that is what the world needs. I cant believe, so many people are not seeing the danger.
Just because he knows how to make money...and loose it again, what makes people think he understands politics?
As I've said before, he is not as bad as his rhetoric imho. There is far more risk with the establishment republican candidates who are fully paid for by their backers.
This election is his to lose. The wind is in his back and history is on his side, but he could blow it all on his own.
Obama has failed to manage some serious problems in part because of his zero exp. as a manager. He is a typical example of a senator. Smart, articulate, and reads teleprompters well, but too alof and a poor manager of government. He has also been exceptionally poor in engaging with congress. Part of the awful stalemate is his fault. If you knew anything about Trump other than the headlines about his timmigration views and temperament, you'd be surprised to know he has a liberal background on most social issues. It's why the Republucan establishment is so against him, that and they fear Clinton will beat him. They are praying for a deadlocked convention so they can bring Romney back in. Trump has tacked right to win the nomination, but like all candidates, he'll move back to the middle to win in the general election. They all do this.
And you cant know, what I know or not. Sorry. What I fear about him is, that this man, as I See him will want to rebuild Americas leading Part in the world by trying to stamp over everybody else, If necessary with armed force. He is NOT moderate in any way as I See him. And when he shows moderation, its a fake. Harsh words maybe And very one sided sounding, I know, but beware, he is elected. With Clinton you get two for the price of one And Bill left the country in tip top shape.
He is ten times better prepared because of his vast management and negotiating skills, and 100 times more cunning than all of them combined,. He also leaves Obama in the dust on these factors, But Trumps emotional intelligence is his weakness. If he doesn't curb his endless ego and the personal attack stuff as it turns most everyone off, it will easily do him in. It hasn't hurt so far in the primaries, but the general electorate is very different. The general electorate always responds to candiates who ppear calm and affable. Almost all recent Presidents in the tv era tick these boxes. It makes no difference what they are really like in private, it's what they project on tv.
Trump has cunningly tapped into fears about immigration, Hispanic and Muslim. It works well in the Republican primaries, but the anti Hispanic talk will hurt badly in the general election. So at this point nobody knows what will happen. This election has become hugely entertaining which elections here never are. That's a good thing and not so good.
Additionally, financial deregulation (including the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act which prevented mega banks/brokerages and certain lending conflicts) occured under his watch, as did the liberalizing of mortgage lending standards. It just blew up on Bush's watch.
He may NOT be worse, thats not the point. The point is, Bush was .....fill in a Word of you chosing....And arguing, Trump is not worse is terrible. People should have LEARNED something from it and not even think about it.
Let me quote @chrisisall here: "Crap." Clinton tried warning GWB about Bin Laden on the way out the door, Bush wouldn't listen. He got several intelligence briefings warning him about planned terrorist action inside the US, including a briefing specifically mentioning the use of hijacked airplanes...and his response was, "Okay, you've covered your ass." Any attempt to pin 9/11 on any President other than GWB is manure of the rankest degree.