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
Manafort's Ukraine scenario was well known prior to his being hired. It was in articles in April. Nothing new here. If the press wanted to do him in, they should have focused more on this prior to the convention. They didn't. Coincidence? I don't think so.
I never believed that Trump intended to go into the finish line with Manafort only. I also didn't believe that he wouldn't change his campaign approach in the final stretch. I expected a push to the finish line, and have said that for weeks. I believe we are seeing the beginning of that. Moreover, I stated that Trump has one eye on a post-election strategy should he lose, and mentioned that some weeks back as well. Hiring Bannon and leaning on Ailes suggests that this is in fact the case, although I don't know what his plan is yet.
I also said that he would take an unconventional approach with his funds. I don't know what that plan is yet either, but look for some innovation when it comes to how he uses that cash hoard on the networks. That is what I mean by asymmetric.
Regarding, Russia, China, Turkey, Iran etc. That is inevitable. Get used to it. The days of Western Imperialism running rampant is over. Again, get used to it. Nuclear weapons means the end of one sided western hegemony. Unless you want to start a third world war and have more people killed without success. The only scenario now is how to coexist within the new world order that is developing. Attempts to bully and circumvent in other countries back yards will be met by severe resistance (from recent evidence). Attempts to divide and conquer likely will fail as well. So new approaches must be found. New paradigms must be considered. Give and take.
Long story, but like always, you keep evading the question I was asking:
Do you think the current geopolitical facts are ethically good or bad? Do you think it will harm the lifes, and with it the prosperity and welfare, of western citizens?
You know, I know what the facts are. Stop teaching me those facts. I know that in the end I have to swallow the current geopolitical affairs as granted. But there's a difference in accepting a new kind of geopolitical status-quo and ethically agreeing on it.
So does that mean I need to throw away my ethical and moral beliefs? Is this how far we have come? Just swinging over, and not having the balls to stand for your core beliefs and be vocal about them? Obviously you will say "There's nothing you can do!", and that is true to a large extend. But for me, following a new outsider, populist status-quo blindly, or following the new balance-of-power shift on this planet blindly, without ethically questioning these developments, have historically been proven to be flawed.......and even dangerous.
To me personally, no matter how futile my criticism will be, I condemn everything that Putin and Trump are standing for, morally and ethically. It scares me how our ideas of democracy and enlightenment (Rousseau, Montesqieu) are being brought to the crematoriums. And it scares me how people like you @BondJames stay silent on it.
I do have my fair bit of criticism about establishment politicians, about The West, about the EU and NATO. They are self-destructive too. But the pace how they do it makes me less worried and leaves open space for solutions. Russia, Trump, Wilders, e.o. are IMO only speeding up that self-destruction to an extend that may be irreparable.
The West may be loosing big time. But as long as I post in here I shall defend those values, how flawed they may seem at this very moment, and I will keep comparing them with other values from an ethical viewpoint (the 'values' of Putin, Trump, Wilders, Erdogan) that offer way way worse prospects for humankind. I stand up for my democratic rights and will use them at my best ability, as opposed to active silence (supporting Trump or Wilders), passive silence (accepting the dire situation of democracy in Russia and Turkey) or mocking our democratic values ('crooked Hillary' will rig the elections, 'journalists are a-holes').
You stay silent on that @BondJames. Your choice. But stop acting like a verbally more sane version of Trump by constantly evading my questions.
Regarding Putin, Trump and the west. These are flawed people. Deeply flawed. As are Obama, Clinton, Bush etc. etc. None of them are saints. In fact, I believe the US is responsible (directly and indirectly) for more deaths in the world since 911 than Russia is. I don't think the numbers are even close. You may be able to condone that. I don't. It's unacceptable. Iraq was unacceptable. Allowing the mess in Syria to occur (by partially funding the anti-Assad arm without giving them sufficient weapons or political cover to win the fight) is unforgivable and has resulted in a human catastrophe of unimaginable proportions that has occurred over the past 5 odd years. It has been a crime against humanity due to political expediency and prevarication. The same applies to how the US created a vacuum in Iraq due to the hamfisted method in which they withdrew (after having gone in there and created the mess to being with).
Trump is a loud mouth and divisive. He's also a media manipulator. However, he makes very valid points about the political class and the system as part of his campaign rhetoric. His opponent is corrupt and is riddled with conflict of interests. She also doesn't appear to speak her mind. The American people will make a decision as to which of these two candidates they prefer in 82 days. You've committed to one side quite clearly. I have not. I continue to watch events unfold with interest. I am certainly leaning Trump because I would like a shake up of that political class (particularly on the foreign policy side). I would have been happy with Bernie for the same reason. The system as it stands is untenable, and you will see that over the next four years even if Hillary wins.
Putin is a nationalist. He puts Russia and Russian interests first, as he sees it. He believes Russia was played by the West post-Soviet Union and he is clear that this will not happen again under his watch. I can understand his point of view. I don't know enough about the truth of the matter to have an opinion on it, but I can understand it.
Putin is not the enemy here. The real enemy is China, but the US political class will not admit that publicly. Putin was supposed to play ball with the EU and West in containing China and soon India. He has refused to. New alliances are being formed because the West has lost credibility in the past. Old tools of 'control' like the IMF & World Bank have been discredited. China is creating a new 'string of pearls' Silk Road strategy that has the foreign policy establishment awake at night. It makes the Marshall Plan look like a joke. A reported $4 trillion of investment. Soft power personified.
At best, we both lean to a certain candidate. You lean to Trump. I lean to the 'new' Clinton that tried hard to bring Bernie's ideas onboard to the Democratic Party platform.
I wonder though @BondJames how much of an idealist you are and even if you put some thought in how a perfect society should look like. Personally, I think you give a damn. You don't even think in a way how Trump may improve the USA during a 4-year term or an 8-year period. And by definition I think that's flawed. You only support shaking up the system for the sake of shaking up. Nothing else. As long as you can maintain both of your apartments in Canada and the USA.
Fair enough. Just keep evading, keep staying away from certain core issues that you don't care about. I'm also done with you @BondJames.
Three minutes later.
Do you recall Michelle Obama's comments on obesity and the American diet early on in her husband's administration? The right wing did not receive those comments well. Perhaps your preferred candidate will take the topic up in the course of his next job -- as the host of an third-rate cable TV show. We shall see...
Well, we do know that Donald Trump is a lover of fast-food. And he doesn't really have a high opinion about ecologically and biologically friendly produced food. 'Fast Food' is his message, not 'Fair Food'.
Here is a look at the last few months of his campaign:
And info on Steve Bannon, just brought in. He likes to take the extreme approach, which should fit like a glove with what Trump is most comfortable with.
What worries me most is how the forces behind Trump try to turn his likely loss into one big 'Hillary Clinton coup d'état'. I find that damaging and destructive for the state of the American democracy. Loss is a loss. Deal with it after November 8th.
I don't think it's a clean hands thing. I believe he just thinks that the wealthy and well-off are supposed to eat even fast food like they would devour a feast in a mansion. Silver spoons are difficult things to remove from your mouth after you've choked on them for so long.
Trump recently on Muslims. So if you have had enough, just skip this:
Poor Kitty...