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
(Sarcasm alert, folks. Black humor & all that. No offense intended. Alert over.)
As I said, it was a question to fathom your knowledge of political systems. I now understand this to be at beginner level.
- If two parties are against one thing, it doesn't mean they are actually part of one party nor does it mean they can work together. The far left and far right often find themselves on the same side, even though they prefer to kill eachother.
- Geert Wilders, like Trump, only shouting out what problems we (may) have, never coming up with solutions. 'Building a wall'is only a solution if you have an idea how you're going to do it. 'let Mexico pay for it' is another one. How will you do this? Ask the Mexicans politely? Wage war so they pay for it? How much would that cost? Wilders is in the same leage. Just becoming popular by coming up with exaggerated problems and non-existent solutions.
@4Ever that Paul Manafort is really a Le Chiffre kind of guy. He'll work with anyone if the money is good (and he doesn't have to pay taxes). If that's one of the closest advisers of the future president of the US, you're properly f***ed as a nation.
@bondjames I think the only reason Trump is hoarding his money, is bacause he's going to run with it. Save himself while his companies crash and burn.
@chrisisall Trump politics:
The Trump Org. 'loaned the Trump campaign' at least $20M early in the year and that was repaid in June when the smaller donations rolled in. Trump is even paying himself a salary to run for President. His liquid cash; is estimated to be down this year to around $175M and sold a significant amount of stock last year.
When you follow the Trump money trail it doesn't leave his pocket.
Well it's lonely at the top :-P
Thanks for the comments @CommanderRoss.
I do have a question for you. Do you think populism becomes another prime reason for the decline of Western supremacy? And how long, do you think, does it take before people start to realize that populism.....becomes the next best force in destroying Western supremacy? And with it all its welfare and prosperity?
I am asking this, because right now I do believe that establishment politics is part of the problem of the decline of Western supremacy (think: Neo-liberal capitalism. Although I do think that ordinary people and normal workers have been part of this complex problem too, they could have empowered themselves in not signning expensive mortgage contracts or financial constructions to buy a car). But there comes a time when populism becomes part of governments...and then populism becomes 'establishment politics' too. Just look at Denmark.
This is not a done Deal
Trump can still win.
The Trumpster has rabid supporters who have no problem walking 5 miles in a snowstorm to cast their vote.
Many true Clinton supporters won't do this. Now Sanders has just as rabid fans and that is why some experts said he could win head up with Trump but not necessarily Clinton.
So long as women, Latinos, Blacks, and true progressives not stay home come election day then Trump will lose in a landslide...stay home and we risk losing everything:
turning this country into what Germany was in the 1930's.
Finishing touches on turning this into a Police State (we are well on our way)
So the big question for everyone in here would be: Shall we give Russia carte-blanche? Shall we make them, together with Turkey, China and Iran, more powerful then the USA? Do we let Russia dictate politics on this planet, and with it their ideas of how states should be governed?
And it seems Trump will be briefed tomorrow.
And interesting to see many of the comments under this are trashing Hillary and the doctor. There is no let up to this crap.
Old article on the blood clot she had back in 2012, from The Atlantic magazine
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/12/a-blood-clot-in-hillary-clintons-brain-how-it-can-turn-out-just-fine/266738/
And this because, obviously, he has shown us time and again how tolerant he is himself:
I wonder if Trump realizes the irony in his attempt to do that.
@dalton, or his use of a teleprompter in the political arena, an act that you'd believe he equates to drowning a baby in the tub, going off past remarks.
I suppose he slams the teleprompter because it's yet another way to slam Obama, as though he were the first president to ever use one. I don't much care for Obama either, but give the man credit where credit is due. He's an excellent speaker, and I've never understood the criticisms where people like Trump try to take that from him when it's so blatantly obvious that it's not the case.
Here is info on the new guy just brought in. Icing on the Trump take no prisoners approach cake. Info on him from last Oct.
Peachy. Here is a taste of new campaign manager:
First of all I don't believe in Western supremacy as something to hang on to, I think that's a very twentieth-century way of thinking. I welcome any nation with humanitarian and enlightened leaders to join in to the 'governing'of this little blue ball out in space.
Populism taps into this old-fashioned way of thinking. So it will be a step backward. And if the general public steps back many bad things can happen. At the same time I don't believe the general public will step back. I do think that on average sanity will prevail. The few times it didn't in the past it was pushed over. The NAZI party was the biggest in it's day, but sure didn't have the majority of votes. They needed a coup for that.
I'm not afraid of Putin. I think he's a very intelligent, stable dictator trying to get back the influence Russia had when she was still the USSR. I think the West has had an overreaction which seems rather cold-war-esque, triggering exactly the same kind of reaction in the Kremlin.
The Ukraine and Crimea problem is something we just don't understand. I've been talking to a Ukrainian who's father is pro-Russia, and who's mother is pro-EU. They live in Odessa. It just isn't as cut-and-dry as our Western media suggest. At the same time, due to the tensions rape and murder happen there every day, even to the extend that the Ukrainian media don't report on it anymore.
Erdogan, on the other hand, is a Hitler-impersonator, as I stated before. The man is a power-maniac willing to eradicate all his opposition (Kurds are his main target, now he's going after the Gulun movement as well).
Neo-liberalism has been a way of implementing mideaval pracftises into a modern world. It was foolish, stupid and thanks to the neo-liberal advisers coming from the US and their Always-drunk victim called Yeltsin, then president of Russia, the country went down the drain, giving Putin his opportunity to play Tszar.
All this proves that whatever your political choices are now, they will have a long-lasting effect in the future. So one has to be very careful.
Populism is far from beeing careful, which means a populist leader is bound to create chaos in the long run.
Manafort's role was to bring home the delegates and arrange the convention. Both done. The last two weeks have been soaking up the pressure while the attack dogs did their job (which was telegraphed prior to it happening by Bloomberg's Mark Halperin, who said on Morning Joe right after the convention that the Clinton team was hoping to put this away in the next two weeks). Did they succeed? It may appear so based on current poll data, but I doubt it.
The makeup of this new team suggests to me that Trump also has one eye on his post-election role, should he lose. Ailes (if there is a connection) and Bannon suggest he is positioning for something, which could be a tv channel or show, as I speculated a few weeks back. Those thinking he will just go away if he loses are wrong.
The first major 'network ad buy' was announced yesterday, and that coincided with major prime tv coverage of his speech. This stuff is pretty easy to read, if you know what to look for.
PS: Russia has just started conducting airstrikes on ISIS positions in Syria from Iran. This is the first time they've done that. The Turkey/Russia relationship has been mended (and Erdogan is stronger than ever thanks to the failed coup attempt that we will really never know who was behind) and Iran is firmly in Putin's corner. Advantage: Putin
@CommanderRoss, I agree with you on Ukraine. The coverage has been a disgrace and doesn't reflect the variety of opinions on the ground in that country.
It's rather coincidental to me that it is occurring just as the home stretch begins, which is after Labour Day. It's also coincidental that the first major prime time speech post-Convention was shown on the day the network 'ad buy' was announced. Trump starts to receive security briefings now as well, and he is attending with Flynn and Christie.
Anyone who really believes that Manafort was going to run the campaign into the finish line needs to reassess their thinking. That was never his expertise nor was it his role. His role was to bring in the delegates (during the contentious Cruz fight) and deliver the Convention as well as play defense with the Insiders. He will still do that last part.
The campaign begins after Labour Day, or slightly before, which is pretty much where we are now.
Campaigns start when the candidate is nominated and even before. During that whole process Trump has presented himself as a bloated, stupid narcissist. He might still win but it's getting more and more unlikely. Unless Hillary Clinton stumbles epically or there's a massive scandal uncovered about her I don't see it happening. She'll need to be worse than Trump pictures her.
----
Phase 1 was winning the primaries. That was Lewandowski.
As soon as that was wrapped up the next phase was delegate retention and ensuring a smooth (relatively speaking given what was predicted to happen with the never Trumpites) convention, as well as Washington inside ball. Also soaking up pressure during the 'dead summer months of the Olympics' while they built their campaign operation. That was Manafort.
Now they are in the final stretch of trying to win an election. That is Conway and Bannon (with assists from potentially Ailes and Manafort).
Different skills for different stages of the campaign.
If you think this campaign manager reshuffle was all part of a giant big strategy, then you are deluded really. You forget to mention that, like Lewandowski before him, Manafort also became a negative assett to the campaign. By all accounts, his relationship with Trump has soured badly, primarily because of their differing ideas about what a campaign should look like and how a presidential candidate should behave. His involvement in pro-Russian enterprises is another blow if you ask me.
Regarding the prime-advantage for Putin on the world stage? I agree with you. And you could have responded to that I was making the similar worrysome about a 'merger' of nations like Russia, Turkey, Iran, China as a big dictating world power.
Now the big question to you: Do you think that's good or bad?
Alas, you'll probably never answer my questions. Because you refuse to admit your 'political color'. You keep being wishy-washy about policies and solutions. You just observe and twist things, so that Trump's campaign looks like one of the biggest succesful TV programs ever. All that could be true, but again, you simply refuse to say if you think it's good or bad for politics.
Hey @CommanderRoss, still curious what you think of this.