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
I was the first ever pro-Hillary supporter in here warning everyone in here that Trump has a serious shot at winning. Go back a few pages and 'praise' me for that.
So stop your fear mongering and posting 'grief charts'. As a matter of fact, 'hail' my realism. Populists are always difficult opponents in campaigns. Their (ab)use of media to let the uneducated people hear what they want to hear, while at the same time slamming the same media, is a political marvel and genius.
.....or violently pushing crying babies away during a campaign event...
Let's not grace Trump with labels of a political Einstein just yet, even if he has words, "the very best words."
=))
Are you saying Donald Trump is like Neil Breen? =))
Well, THAT was deceptively phrased. Reportedly, Hillary doesn't like to drink water, which contributes to her dehydration. That's not at all the same thing as having "a drinking problem" (or even a drinkning problem, as you've put it) which the general public defines as "drinking alcohol in such excessive quantities that it becomes a problem." Thanks ever so much for contributing to the dialogue, Iggy -- next time try to do so truthfully.
In some ways, we perhaps owe Matt Lauer a debt of gratitude. His ludicrously shallow interviews with presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were as clear an example as you could ask for of the failure of the mainstream media in this election. Lauer seemed to be simply acting as a conduit for a preset script, reifying a pre-existing narrative, and he was not really interested in answers as much as creating moments that can be replayed on the news networks.
For instance, Hillary Clinton is "corrupt" or "crooked," as Trump puts it. Therefore, at a forum ostensibly about the military, foreign policy, and veterans, Lauer abandoned the topic and goaded Clinton for nearly half her time about the played-out, made-up, insignificant e-mail "scandal." There was nothing new to ask about. It was merely an occasion for Lauer to channel whatever fake outrage is in the zeitgeist and press her to re-re-re-apologize and re-re-re-explain. And then, after Lauer had asked about it, the first questioner, who was prescreened, asked about the damn emails. Anyone watching uncritically would have thought that the most important issue facing the United States in the world is not Russia's growing influence, the conflict in Syria, or trade with China. No, it's whether or not Clinton truly understood that she screwed up by having a private email server. Not that she leaked secrets. Not that it was hacked and agents were exposed. No, just that she had one. As with just about everything allegedly scandalous with Clinton, there is nothing there except a narrative that must be sustained, no matter what the FBI, Congressional committees, and multiple investigations say. Clinton isn't corrupt or crooked. But she is not allowed to escape her narrative frame.
When it came to Trump, Lauer also worked to keep the narrative going, that Trump is just saying provocative things that are meaningless, that his ignorance is merely naivete. You could easily make a case that Lauer went easy on his former network colleague (The Apprentice was an NBC show, after all). You could make the case that Trump's chumminess with media outlets over the decades has given him an insider's track with them (or given him information he can threaten them with). Whatever the case, at no moment did Lauer bear down on Trump with the kind of unrelenting focus he gave to Clinton's emails. Many have faulted Lauer for not questioning Trump's continued lie about opposing the Iraq War, which he did after it had started, but not before, as he has claimed. But when Trump said other outrageous things, about how much he admires Vladimir Putin's "leadership" or how he stands by his tweet that blames the presence women in the military for their sexual assaults, Lauer's limited follow-ups amounted to "Really?" And when Trump pretty much just said, "Yeah, really," Lauer moved on. Even when Trump said something bizarre and demonstrably false, like we need to "set up a court system within the military" (which has existed since the 1700s), Lauer gave him a pass instead of repeatedly asking him what the hell he's talking about.
It wasn't journalistic malpractice. That implies actual journalism was occurring. It was eliminating the need for journalists. That seems to be the end game in the shift in what reporting is, especially on TV, from exposing truth and seeking facts to putting competing positions on a screen and having them go at it for a little while. The idea that newspapers and networks have special "fact check" sections, with their fiery pants and multiple Pinocchios, is embarrassing. A newspaper itself, in its articles, should be the fact check. Every story should be able to say that some things are simply unassailable facts. Instead, and especially in this election season, "news" has become another version of the human-free Facebook news feed, telling us what people are talking about whether it's real or not. I'm not saying we once lived in glory days of spin-free media, but it's gotten exponentially worse to where all there is is spin, a top without a table.
So the one good thing that might come out of the pathetic failure of Matt Lauer is that the game was revealed: inflate every foible of Clinton's to earth-shattering importance and shrink every lie and extreme position of Donald Trump to mere fluff. Two editorials today seem to be giving the mainstream media the chance to correct this egregious unfairness in the treatment of the candidates. The Washington Post said, "Enough" to the email story and said that Trump's dangerous ignorance is far more important. The New York Times said that the Lauer interviews set a terrible precedent that, if followed in the debates, will do harm to our democracy. (They might want to start with their front page, which seems to be obsessed with making Clinton seem like a devious criminal.)
Meanwhile, the moderator for the third debate, Chris Wallace of Fox News (motto: "Sexual harassment free for six weeks!"), said that it's not his job to be a "truth squad" if the candidates lie. So I propose that, at that debate, Hillary Clinton say that Trump ****** Wallace's wife. ******* her every which way. "You know, Chris," Clinton should say, "Your wife told me that you wouldn't **************** . Donald ************** and then ****************. And she loved it. Then Roger Ailes joined them and she ***************** while Trump **************** and she had screaming *********. It totally happened. No truth squad, right, Chris?"
If "journalists" refuse to do journalism, then we might as well just **** with them.
BeatlesSans back again, just to note: Now Trump is suggesting no moderators at all. Now we can guess why.
Oh, so you're making a claim that you have no corroboration for. Then -- how can I put this tastefully? -- find some or STFU. Bounder, cad and worse! Justify your slurs or retract them. What the hell is wrong with you Trumpfools that you think you can say just any damn thing that comes to your mind and not be called out for it? Be truthful or begone!
Generally you are right, Brady. But not with this. Why? If you folks only take this Last episode. What do we have? She stumbles out of the festivities. There is a video, that doesnt allow them to ignore it. So they came up with overheated. But the public didnt buy into that. They had to give them something else. Something that is more serious, but not too scary and just momentary condition. So Pneumonia it was. They took her in and after just one hour she reappeared feeling great. Wow, a miracle. As much as you Folks hate it when I piss on your parade, but you just swallow this? Naa...
Presently, Hillary Clinton is running a very poor campaign. You simply cannot insult voters (that, to use a British expression, is playing the man rather than the ball) or play into your opponent's image of you. You don't allow your opponent to frame the argument. That way lies disaster.
Obama's campaign manager, David Axelrod, has it absolutely right:
"Antibiotics can take care of pneumonia. What's the cure for an unhealthy penchant for privacy that repeatedly creates unnecessary problems."
As Nixon could tell her, it's the secrecy, it's the botched cover-up that gets you, in the end, not the original deed (if indeed there even was an original deed).
I wanted Joe Biden to be president this time out, but fully understood his decision not to run. I want a Democratic president, and I still think there will be one, but Hillary's campaign simply have to sort themselves out. They have nobody but themselves to blame for the tightening in the polls.
For all those bemoaning the media's treatment of Hillary's pneumonia, you have to fairly ask yourself this question: What would the same media have done had it been 2008 and it was John McCain caught on video being bundled into the back of that van?
*sigh*
@Germanlady, I'm not "swallowing" anything. :-S I just don't make overblown statements about someone who is clearly not on death's door like some in the media and Trump camp would want everyone to believe. I don't know anyone who is full of energy, alert and strong in balance while sick. I had a bad case of the flu a few years back and it feels like you aren't even human you're so numb and lifeless. The cure for sickness is heavy rest, so obviously heavy and frequent traveling while sick makes it worse, which is what Hillary has had to do in the position she's in.
Hillary may be ill, and you don't feel well when you're ill, so that's a credible judgement to make. There's no greater issue going on here. Being sick with the added stressors she has running a massive presidential campaign is going to make her feel it at times, but let's not act like she's out of the job because of this tripe.
FDR was president during one of the darkest times in American history, and finished his run as a near-vegetable, but remained strong amidst it all. I think Hillary is going to be okay in comparison.
I know you have your own theories on the inner workings of the world (especially in the sphere of politics), but at times they can sound too much like the things a guy would say who claims to be probed by aliens bi-monthly or the people on Youtube who post videos compiling signs of the illuminati pyramid shape in the film and music industry.
Any of us can criticize and speculate when we label it clearly as such. When you state AS FACT a slur that you have no evidence to support, that is unsupportable. I charge you, base dissembler: produce evidence for your charge that Hillary has a drinking problem or withdraw it.
Wait, you believe Hillary Clinton isn't a populist?
Here's a clue for you: we're going to have either Hillary or Trump as TNAP. It's what this thread is ABOUT. A knock on one candidate is, of necessity, a push for the other. If I were to come on here and claim (without any evidence to back it up) that Donald Trump is engaged in an international child slavery ring, that could quite correctly be interpreted as promoting Hillary's candidacy. Not that I'm making any such claim, of course. I'm, y'know, just saying....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/stephen-king-donald-trump-cthulhu_us_57d77e19e4b0fbd4b7bb4540?section=&;
And...?
Can't you tell, @0Brady? It's an expression of love!