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
Indeed, he is.
Even back when the field stood at 17 candidates, Kasich was one of few voices of reason in a group that was busy trying to see who could act angrier than the others. He's been my choice out of all 22 candidates that have run for president in this cycle from the very beginning.
There's still a slight chance that he could become the Republican nominee and/or the president of the United States. He is, by far, the most experienced politician left on the Republican side (maybe even on both sides), so he might be more adept at maneuvering at the convention when nobody goes in with 1,237 delegates.
The other way I could see him getting the presidency would be for him to swallow his pride and latch onto Trump's campaign as the VP candidate (Trump said he will pick an experienced politician for the job) and just wait out an eventual Trump impeachment. The chances that Trump would be impeached as president are high, so the Trump VP slot could be a backdoor way for the establishment to gain the presidency without having to kill the party in the process. Maybe impeaching Trump could be the bipartisan team building exercise that could bring both sides back to a place where they can work together again.
The same will happen on the Dem side if Bernie gets traction in the next few months (and he may). I can already see a slight panic setting in on the left.
The biggest laugh of all is the President of the United States, his Secretary of State and the White House Press Secretary weighing in almost every other day on the presidential campaign. What a conflict of interest! Ridiculous, and shows how frightened everyone really is of the people's vote.
I doubt either would be weighing in were it not for the ridiculousness and dangerous rhetoric being spewed by some of the candidates. I don't think it has anything to do with them being frightened by the vote of the people.
The process is what it is. Nothing being done is 'illegal' under US law. If they have a problem with it, they should change their process and get both sides working to ensure that happens.
In fact, given how panicky both sides are at present, perhaps this is the perfect time to get legislation passed on how campaigns are run and how media report on them. Bipartisan support is quite likely at this time.
Will they do it?
No, because big money owns the press & the politicians on both sides. Ratings rule.
Some of Trump's talk could be considered to be illegal, such as his incitement of violence at his rallies. That's one of the things they've commented on, and they were right to comment on that. Trump has also advocated war crimes as part of his platform (as has Cruz), so it can't be said that nothing has been done is illegal, that just isn't the case.
I'd have a bit more sympathy for the Republican candidates in this regard if they were behaving and conducting themselves as presidential candidates. But, Trump and Cruz are acting like school children, and don't deserve the respect that the office they seek to win would carry.
I also don't see anything wrong with a president offering his or her opinion. Both Clinton and Bush weighed in on the race to replace them when they put their support behind Gore and McCain, respectively.
I'm afraid I disagree with you on Obama. If he wants to put his weight behind Hillary, he can do it after the primary process is over and when we know who the Republican nominee will be. Interjecting & commenting as he has done to date has made me lose quite a bit of respect for the man & his office. He made no statements for example about the disgraceful protests (violent) that took place in Chicago and that could have resulted in injuries. So his comments are typically partisan.
Let the process play out.
And if he made no comments, how could they be partisan??
:))
My point about Obama is his attacks have been directed at the Republican candidates. During an election process that is meant to be fair. That is partisan. He has a habit of doing this and it makes him look small, and his office look small. The office of the presidency should be above that. He's even commented on the media not vetting candidates. Rich coming from the man who was seen as a messiah by the same press during his first campaign and got more of a free ride than anyone. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
The Republican candidates are objectively assholes.
I don't like Hillary either, but at least she's not a complete ASSHOLE.
They're all owned players, but the Republicans want to sabotage women's rights and freedoms & persist in exacerbating homo & xenophobia. Calling a bunch dicks a bunch of dicks is not partisan, it's simple clear observation.
:D
Generally, I agree, but I don't think that literally the entire 17 candidate field of Republican candidates falls into that category. I certainly don't think that John Kasich falls into that category.
It is appropriate, I think, for the president to weigh in on what's happening on the Republican side. If what the presidential candidates do happened entirely in a vacuum, then I might agree, but they don't. The rhetoric spewing from Trump and Cruz has the world anxious and has the potential to jeopardize our interests abroad. It is the job of the POTUS and the Secretary of State to protect our interests around the world, which they are doing when the speak out again Trump and Cruz's rhetoric.
But, even taking the position that it's not appropriate for the president to do so, just for argument's sake, I think that Trump and Cruz have forfeited the right to be treated with such respect due to their rhetoric. It's OK to have differences of opinions on each side of the aisle, but it's NOT OK for presidential candidates to call for the rejection of the Geneva Conventions, calling for the United States military to follow illegal commands, running on a platform that calls for the commission of war crimes, and running a campaign that incites violence, and at that point, I think a candidate has forfeited any such right to be ignored by people in positions of power (not that I really think they have that right in the first place).
Cruz throwing the towel and endorsing Trump in possible double ticket Trump/Cruz!
I think it's safe to say that that ticket would have no chance. ;)
All Clinton would have to do is play that speech she gave when she endorsed Trump on a loop and that would clinch her victory.
Quite frankly, and with respect, that is no different that what has actually happened in the past, including at Gitmo/Abu Ghraib etc., including sexual abuse. The only difference now is it will be out in the open for the public to debate it prior to an election. The public can make up its mind.
There is a legitimate debate to be had on whether the Geneva Conventions should apply to suspected terrorists, as opposed to Nation state combatants. My understanding is that they do not, since the organizations in question are not a signatory.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4879942.stm
If it was Hillary vs. Kasich I'd have a choice to make.
.
Regardless of how you feel about Guatanamo, what Trump has advocated, in the form of "going after" the families of suspected terrorists, goes way beyond the pale. Not only is it absolutely vile from a moral perspective, but it also puts our national security at risk and would almost certainly prolong the conflict with international terrorism, as more terrorists would be created directly as as result of that despicable policy, should it be enacted. And, for the record, even as a conservative, I do not have a problem with Obama's desire to close the facility. In all honesty, having seen a documentary on the maximum security prison that they would most likely be sent to, they'd be getting a much tougher deal there than they are at Guantanamo.
I'd also be more sympathetic to the idea of letting "Americans have their say" if that was actually the case. I didn't get a say in any of this. The vast majority of Americans had no say in who the presidential candidates are. The people of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada are the ones that got to have a say. I only had a choice to pick from what was left after those states had their say. The idea that Americans are getting to have their say in this process is absolute nonsense. Certainly the people in Wisconsin, New York, Pennsylvania, and everywhere else have had less of a say than anyone else, as they're forced to choose between two losers and a guy with no mathematical chance of securing the nomination.
I wouldn't worry too much about the incendiary remarks. Half of this is campaign rhetoric played up for the base and for the far right elements of the party on both sides. Most of the more extreme aspects can and will never get implemented.
This year the Repubs have taken it to new levels, and the Dems (who are suffering a serious enthusiasm gap under their presumptive nominee) are consciously not. If you'll recall, 8 yrs ago, it was almost as vicious on that side when they had the combative primary battle between Obama and Clinton.
The longer the process drags out, the more divisive and heated it will become. That's to be expected, given the nature of the media driven sensationalist process in place.
I do, however, have a problem when the viciousness extends to those outside the political arena, such as to the innocent people that Trump's comments directly affect. His comments about Mexicans, women, innocent family members in the Middle East, and the vast number of other groups he's targeted for his specific brand of bullying, have no place in the political process. Nor does his grandstanding on the debate stage saying that he's more qualified for the presidency than Marco Rubio because a certain part of his anatomy is bigger.
If he wants to be vicious with Ted Cruz on a personal level. Go for it. I'd say likewise to Ted Cruz, if he wants to viciously attack Trump (or Kasich, or whoever else) on a personal level, then fine. They got into the game knowing that's a possibility. But to target the groups that he's targeted is shameful, divisive, and completely counter-productive.
He attacks competitors when they attack him. He hasn't gone after Kasich because Kasich hasn't got dirty with him. Everyone who goes after him gets hit.
This is a man that continually shows, even going beyond some of the evil comments that he's made, that he has no grasp of what he needs to know in order to be president. His supporters keep saying that eventually he'll show that he can be presidential, that he can grasp the policies, yet he continues to go backward on that front every day. He changes his position on abortion three times over the course of a single day.
This is the last I'm going to say about Trump for today. Quite frankly, the man just isn't worth my time. I will say, though, and I'm sure the progressives here will love this. I think I've convinced myself today that, if the race is indeed Trump vs. Clinton, I'm voting for Hillary.
Don't know if there is another side to him. Probably too brash for the top job, which at the end of the day is all about 'appearances' and 'deception', whether it be the public, foreign leaders, or everyone else.
Leaders are panicking because he appears to have no 'filter'.
*fingers still crossed for Bernie*
She's definitely not much better, but if anything, I feel like I could sleep at night without having to worry about her firing off a mean tweet and then going for the nuclear football.
It's good to take sides on that and think it through, because it may in fact be the choice at the end of the day.