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
They definitely have gotten it wrong time after time in this cycle. That's a good thing, though, since it shows the voters not just going with the pre-determined plot the media came up with, as sometimes happens.
Can't wait to see how Trump attacks Rubio. Rubio, moreso than any of the other candidates not named Cruz, is ripe for attacks. He barely shows up for work in the Senate, and he touts his record as the most experienced foreign policy person in the race, yet he's skipped 60% of the foreign relations committee hearings. I'd expect Trump to hammer down on that point heavily.
On the Repub side, look for a lot of insiders to start coming out in the media and slamming Trump. Romney, Haley, Graham, and the big daddy of all, McCain (where's he been lately, unless he's been hurt by the no war hero allegations).
Welcome to America, 2016. The Right wing of this country has lost its collective mind.
Also, the 'ghost' of Reagan must finally be exorcised. Sadly the man is no longer here to rebut some of the claims made in his name.
Yes, indeed it does. I sometimes find myself sick watching Ted Cruz invoke Reagan's name as a cover for the things he wants to do. Cruz would be the single most divisive president we've ever had. He's singularly responsible for a government shutdown and he refuses to compromise. Reagan, on the other hand, managed to leave office with a 68% approval rating, tied for the most in the modern era (alongside FDR and Clinton), so he was successful to some degree as a uniting force. Cruz is the exact antithesis of that.
I haven't been following the political ads this time around (cut the cord on cable so I don't see much in the way of "real" TV), so I don't know if they have already or not, but if I were Trump and Rubio, I'd use that footage over and over and over.
You are wise...
And to add to that, when the establishment candidates do talk about illegal immigration and the other issues that Trump is addressing, they never get anything meaningful done about them. They use it as a campaign issue to pander for votes and then don't do anything once they get to Washington.
He's tapping into that anger and he will be a very formidable candidate for Clinton to face in the general, if indeed he is the nominee. He does have history on his side, as no Republican has won both New Hampshire and South Carolina and not gone on to be the nominee. Hillary should be worried as she'll be facing another anti-establishment, grass-roots campaign, the type of campaign she struggles against anyway, but this time it will be one that is in no way afraid to do actually go after her in the way that Bernie hasn't so far in the primary.
Well if you think that everything
Agreed on all points. Hillary will have a "fun" summer and fall if she gets past Bernie.
Well, if you think everything is hunky dory with regards to illegal immigration and the terrorist threat in the U.S., then you are either not paying attention or you are in denial. All I know is that wide open borders can attract some very dangerous people.
Apparently in the north east some union leaders (Dem's) are starting to panic because their members (including minorities) have started to show support for Trump.
Trump has been facing kids compared to what he will face if he's the nominee against Hillary.
PS: I'm not sure Trump as nominee will result in low voter turnout. He is channeling a populist revolt, and the Repubs are motivated this year.
I was 26 miles from the Trade Center on 9-11, my Brother-in-law was RIGHT THERE. And I don't go around hating or fearing Muslims, nor do I fear for my life from terrorist attacks. And NO, I'm not from Krypton, I just have a realistic sense of danger NOT handed to me by the right wing media but determined by research and decided upon using my OWN faculties. I guess I'm an independent that way, a Browncoat if you will.
Between the drug trade and the potential for both criminals and terrorists to come across an unguarded border, it only makes sense to do something, even if the actual chances of something that we'd label as a terrorist attack is statistically low.
Yes. the conventional wisdom is that there are many women, and many minority voters who will not vote for him, and of course that is true. However, there are several that will, and the analysts are missing this imho - it is being underestimated, as is he.
He is a wildcard, and that is why Obama has mentioned him two to three times by name. They are scared. David Axelrod acknowledged as much yesterday.
Polls mean nothing now as you say. However, only one candidate of the two we're discussing is a force of nature and has defied all electoral estimates so far, and it's not Hillary.
This is how history is always made, and how punditry is made minced meat out of. It happened with Obama, and with Reagan before.
Look, I'm not advocating for the man necessarily, but he is definitely still being grossly underestimated. We will see this over the next couple of weeks imho.
He is the anti-Obama, just like Reagan was the anti-Carter and Obama is the anti-Bush.