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
Sorry, but I cannot stand her, the same way I cannot stand Trump. They are both equally despicable in their own right.
Trump - well, we know all about him. What you see is what you get. If nothing else, at least he is fairly transparent, even if he is offensive.
Clinton appears to be hiding a lot. As it stands now, we have another Nixon scandal in the making. This looks like another big cover-up, and I for one don't believe a single word that comes out of her lips anymore. In terms of trustworthiness alone, I hate to say it but I would rather trust Trump than Clinton (and that is saying something)!
How exactly is HRC dangerous? From the standpoint of what she can control, within the Oval Office, she poses no threat and we will likely see more of what we've seen the past 8 years. In fact, as his Presidency nears a close, we are truly coming to understand that Obama has been a terrific President.
Trump, on the other hand, would be a disaster within the realms of what he can control. Giving him status of "Commander in Chief" should scare everyone.
CNN is a real news organization. Unfortunately, like most news, they give in to some sensationalism. Fox, on the other hand, is pure propaganda.
I said 20 years ago that the rise of Fox News was going to create a huge segment of society filled with hate, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness. And it's happened.
If Trump is able to pull off a victory on Tuesday, it will be largely symbolic. He will have to work with Congress to get things through. He is not ideological, and he knows how to make a deal, so there is a chance after a shakeup in the leadership (Ryan may have to go, although Trump may work with him anyway). The things he is most focused on are illegal immigration, national security and the trade deals. I think common ground can be found on those issues.
If it's Clinton, I just don't know what she will be able to do with her credibility already shot over the emails and the Foundation. She will have dirty hands before she gets into office and the Republicans will smell blood. I've always thought this would be case anyway. She's ripe for targeting and she plays into it.
This is an issue of credibility in my view. Even if Clinton and Congress want to work together to make changes, they have lost credibility with a large portion of the population. The tension needs an 'outsider' escape valve. In this instance, that is Trump.
Trump will be largely a symbolic victory, but he can articulate an overall vision and a direction much better than she can in my opinion.
The odds still favour Clinton though, with 4 days to go.
----
Regarding the media, you are absolutely correct. They are complete rubbish. Largely sensationalism and conflict driven for the sake of ratings. It has to do with ownership of the media by large corporations, too much commercial advertising requirements, and no countervailing public force, like the BBC.
I think she is dangerous in the fact that she has been caught out lying, covering her tracks, being misleading - and now being under another investigation by the FBI. The whiff of corruption is all around her. The daily stories that are leaking are not good in any way, and I'm guessing there are bigger things to be revealed by the FBI. The bleaching of emails, and her smug remarks of `What? Wiping it with some kind of cloth?'
A person behaving that way is not fit for office. These are definitely not positive traits, whichever way you try and spin it in her favour, and she is definitely no Obama either.
As for CNN, why are they not reporting any of the daily Wikileaks, or the FBI investigation? They are not mentioning it in any of their bulletins now. That to me is looking just as biased as Fox.
This is the same thing as happened in 2000, when the Repubs went back to the well to find 'Jr.', the anointed one. This is not the year for that kind of s#!^ and they should have realized it. This is not 1988. This is a sea change year imho.
I agree. But neither is Clinton suitable either.
This is why his victory will come as more of a shock than Brexit. I bet the bookmakers will be losing out big time come next week.
Some here provide whole conspiracy theories, some paint a picture pitch black of what will follow an elected President Trump.
People are upset with the establishment, too many people were left behind and now they are angry and will revolt in form of protest voting. This is true for the US and Europe.
At the same time the EU governments (and the US) lets Erdogan just turn Turkey into a dictatorship, which factually already has happened.
The reason I'm not completely against a President Trump is because I believe such a shock to the system is needed.
Like the Brexit was needed.
If Clinton gets elected we will get another term of the same nonsense that left so many people behind. And this is the dark side of the Obama years.
Too many people have lost all faith and hope, nobody cared for them.
I promise you after Clinton there will be an even worse candidate for the Republicans running, like Ted Cruz, and he will get elected.
And then Good night and good luck.
In all honesty, while I think Trump is necessary to let steam out of the system, the electoral college doesn't favour him. He will seriously have to craft some magic on Tuesday to take it, and as I said earlier today, the Dems are pulling all the stops with all surrogates (including Obama, who is now Campaigner in Chief) out there on the stump trying to stop it.
After four years of Clinton, the Reps could probably put Gingrich/Palin on the ticket and they would win.
you were talking earlier about the uneducated people that vote for Trump. This argument I hear a lot, also in Europe with far-right voters.
I always find that so arrogant. What does uneducated mean anyway?
If it means high school and nothing else then you can count me into that group. I'm not that intelligent and always was much better at physical stuff like sports and the army.
So if I would vote conservative it's because I'm uneducated and don't have an IQ in the three digits? Because that's what dumb people like me are getting told always.
In Switzerland I always vote for our center party. In the US I would have voted for Bush Sr, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama.
But like so many people I feel the current establishment doesn't listen anymore to our worries. For the first time ever I was tempted to vote for our right-conservative party because they are the only ones actually taking the people seriously, but they are populists so I didn't.
I understand your position, Murdock. That's why I'm looking to things that give me pleasure, like music.
As usual, GL, you misunderstand. I DON'T have much time on my hands, certainly not enough to write reams & reams that no one will really be paying attention to. It takes hardly any time at all to cut & paste the lyrics to a song...and maybe someone will get some pleasure out of the song. If you don't, too bad, your loss. Here's the immortal Johnny Cash dueting with Mr. Dylan on a song from Dylan's Nashville Skyline album:
Now, if we can just do something about your love of DAD, then we'll be getting somewhere.
Except for the ones that hated each other already before this thread was opened :P
@BondJasonBond006, there's many ways to define "uneducated."
There are those who pursue no education whatsoever in their lives, high school or otherwise, that can stymie their growth as thinkers (though this obviously isn't the case for everyone). Some can't afford higher education, which I sympathize with, but it's no excuse not to be an informed individual.
There are also those who are simply uneducated in a non-academic sense about the political system, human nature and regular psychology; ie. they don't know when they're being strung along by a shyster. People suffering from these kinds of ignorances, statistically shown to be Trump's bread and butter, are easily tricked by his words because he's different, and they'll follow anything he has to say because they don't know better. As I said in an earlier post, this is why so many Trump supporters you see at rallies repeat his words verbatim. They don't know how to actually interpret or analyze his words on their own, so they just say whatever he says word for word to seem like they know what is going on. Their ignorance to how the political system is run and their lack of interest in being informed on any issues that fall within the political spectrum explain why they are willing to follow the words of a candidate who lies over 75% of the time. They don't know any better and don't think to fact check Trump, and he counts on that. As he's said in the past, "I love the uneducated." Yes, I bet you do, Don. All the better to lead them like a sheepdog.
This is also part of the reason why so much of Trump's moral issues are so easily struck down by these people. They lack the knowledge or human empathy to engage the part of their brain that says walking in on a bunch of teenage models changing, generalizing races of people and tricking the system to favor only your interests are all wrong, which is sad because all it takes to realize the drawbacks to a candidate who does those things is a decent sense of morality and a modicum of empathy for the victims of the man. There's a certain lovely sect of Trump's supporters who call the women Trump has bad mouthed-or worse, invaded the space of-whores or women who are only looking for attention, and their bigotry also places them against Muslims, immigrants and more.
Trump has the knack for lighting the fires under the asses of these-dare I say it-deplorable people, and amongst many factually barren things, he has made them think the entire election is rigged against him, that Obama and Hillary are tyrants taking away the peoples' rights to own guns and now, he's even helped to energize some in the population to imply that they want to shoot Hillary dead as targets are made with her face on them in gun shops around the good old U.S. of A.
So, in conclusion: very, very, very uneducated people. And therefore, very, very dangerous people.
Well said.
Unfortunately, that tends to be the stereotype of the Republican/Conservative voter. If you're not on board with the progressive or far left agenda, then it's because you're not educated enough to understand it.
Not that any anecdotal evidence is going to be able to counter the stereotype, but one of the smartest people I know is a reliable Republican voter (don't think he's a registered member) and quite conservative. One of the sharpest minds I know, and far from being the uneducated simpleton the media would like the country to think the majority of Trump voters are.
I don't doubt that Trump has his fair share of highly uneducated people voting for him. The type of bigoted and racist campaign that he's run tends to attract a less than ideal element, as evidenced by his receiving the endorsement of David Duke and his despicable organization. But to paint the majority of his supporters as such is a mistake. There are very intelligent people who will cast their votes for Trump. Many, I suspect, will do so because the find the alternative equally or more repugnant than the Republican nominee. Against a better Democratic nominee, Trump would lose in a clear landslide (and he still might), but the fact that Clinton is his opponent is one of the few reasons that he has a chance to win this thing on Tuesday.
Sad its sarcasm, since its rather true. Not totally alone, but with the help of the US she did a great job in putting Europe in a dangerous place. I sibncerely hope, she will be removed as soon as possible. Maybe at that point, we get someone, who is not a marionette. Hard to believe, but times change.
Christoph Hörstel - Deutschland Mitte. So far still a small party, but he has all the right ingredients in my book and a lot of experience. He is not willing to sacrifice his beliefs and I belief that, because he is already proofing it. He is not afraid to speak out, where others remain quiet. He puts his fingers into all the open or hidden wounds of our system. Good man.
Brady, a big channel like CNN will ALWAYS only report, what is allowed and system true. Its a Make Belief channel like all the others. No mainstream media channel is free to report as they wish. Anderson and Co report, what is written for them on a piece of paper. Nothing else. You can wipe your cute little arse with that AND with their news. Well - mostly.
They re as biased and corrupt as the BBC.