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
It doesn't really matter, though. The wall isn't going to get built anyway, regardless of what Trump says.
Yes, it's that simple
In that case Obama better allocate a lot of funds towards education. I know it's late but perhaps it'll do the trick.
Yes, I get the notion that the wall wouldn't be at the airport...
So what is currently on the border? Is it completely open? If so, I was wondering why they are so strict at the airport, and in demanding so much personal information on flight passengers.
My mistake. I misunderstood what you were saying.
From what I've been able to gather (never been to the border) there's a lot of open terrain. There is also some fencing, which the government began to put up during George W. Bush's administration, but the project was abandoned due to high cost. According to Wikipedia, that project provided 640 miles of new fencing and/or barriers to the border. There might be other barriers on the border (there are what they refer to as "natural" barriers where Trump wouldn't be building his wall, for example), but even still that would leave open a good chunk of the 1,933 miles that make up the border.
*THWAP!*
...uh, Lex Luthor Incorporated.
Trump will invade Canada.
Trump cracks down on protesters, asks for loyalty oath
Yes, he is.
At times I wonder if he's in fact a sleeper agent planted by the Tea Party to make Ted Cruz look electable.
I like that mr Bloomberg responded as he did, as he is in the middle of it, he might even be right in his assumption. After all, I can only regret that he lost some of his fortune to come to that conclusion..!
As for 'Burn Notice' we WILL all see how this ends...(!)
He is a Republican what do you expect? They behave that way.
Cruz 300
Now some American tell me Cruz will not get the nomination, I'm getting sleepless nights.
Cruz/Clinton would be a nightmare and I'm not so sure Cruz wouldn't win.
It's not even remotely fair to say that this is something to be expected out of Republicans. We (Republicans) are consistently voting against Trump, but he's managed to win due to a large field of candidates. 60+% of the the electorate is voting against Donald Trump, and Trump's poll numbers are starting to fall now that he's delving more and more into the fascist rhetoric.
And Trump isn't just drawing from a Republican base. He's bringing people in from the independent and Democratic electorate to vote for him as well. The wide majority of us Republicans have rejected his hateful rhetoric as antithetical to what the party does and should stand for.
Trump isn't even a Republican, anyway. He's a Democrat, the evidence of which lies in his donation history, his stances on all of the major issues dividing the two parties before his sudden "evolution" to conveniently bring him in line with the Republicans. The only reason he's running as a Republican is that he knows that's his easiest path to the White House. He wouldn't get within 100 miles of the White House if he ran against Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination.
"You squeezed them, you hammered them to the point of desperation. And in their desperation they turned to a man they didn't fully understand."
This is how we got here...
1. The bogus theory of "supply side" economics became the rule. By the end of the Reagan era, the culture had been changed: the wealthy now firmly believed that they ran the country. Any kind of "tax increase"was considered stealing. Proof of this could be seen in the whining that occurred when Obama wanted to let the Bush tax cuts "expire." Now, remember, the tax cuts were "temporary," and not permanent. But the cons spun it their way: letting those temporary cuts expire was considered a "tax increase."
2. Union busting also began with Reagan--who, ironically enough, had once been the head of a union! Twenty years later, union membership dropped significantly. Workers' rights were being gutted. Wages have been stagnant ever since. The combination of supply-side and union busting has led to the enormous gap we now have between rich and poor.
3. In the 80s, Conservatives removed the "fairness doctrine." This was legislation that limited ownership of telecommunications, particularly radio and TV stations. The purpose of that legislation was to make sure information didn't find itself in the hands of the few. Couple this with #1 and you would start to see more cash freed up to buy the airwaves.
4. By the 90s, more public TV stations were becoming owned by conglomerates with conservative agendas who would sometimes interrupt regular prime-time TV for anti-liberal infomercials. In other words, the public started getting fed propaganda. This is where Fox News comes into the picture.
5. Education funding keeps getting cut. American kids keep falling behind, and one state (Texas) wants to remove "critical thinking" from its curriculum.
6. But the cons still weren't winning enough elections. So what do they do? Start changing the rules. They eliminate parts of the Voting Rights Act. Some states eliminate "early voting" which had become a primary way for African-Americans to vote. Redistricting has put more power in the hands of cons, and along with that they have tried to change "electoral college" votes to be split up based on districts...meaning popular vote within a state won't equal winning all or even most of the electoral college votes. In short: rig the elections and the election processes.
7. The final nail: Citizens United. This SCOTUS ruling allowed for unlimited cash rolling in to political campaigns. The effect is that billionaires in one state start to affect local elections in other states. Hence, a senator in Ohio might be bought and paid for by a billionaire in Kansas. The uber-wealthy can have an enormous effect on races that 90% or more of the public have no say in. This is how we get stuck with McConnell and Boehner. Neither man was ever put in place by a large number of people.
So...voila! You have all the power and money in the hands of the few, while the masses are kept poor and stupid. This is why you have so many Americans continually voting against their own best interests.
=D>
I don't quite agree with all of this, but a lot of it is correct. I would disagree on education. The conservative plan to get rid of, or severely cut, the Department of Education and return those responsibilities to the state and local level is a sound one and an idea the Democrats should stop trying to block.
The intentions of the federal government are good when it comes to education, but they continually, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, try to force a one-size-fits-all solution to the education problem down everyone's throats, which just doesn't work. They should be involved in, at the very most, setting the absolutely bare minimum baseline which must be met, but allow state and local officials to figure out how to get their students to reach those baselines, only stepping in if there is evidence of gross incompetence at the state and local level.
The federal government makes it impossible for educators to do their job because they are constantly having to teach to a particular set of tests rather than teaching a curriculum. Allowing the power to teach go back to the state and local level would help to free up some money in terms of paying down the deficit as well as allow the quality of education to, in theory, go up because teachers would be allowed to utilize their expertise in their chosen field of study rather than having to teach to a test that is often devised by a private company purely for profit and may not reflect the true knowledge of the individual student.
As for the idea posed above that none of the Republican candidates are suitable for the office of the POTUS, I'd suggest another look at John Kasich. He's starting to gain some momentum in Michigan and should be able to win Ohio now that Trump's numbers are starting to go down. He's been the "adult in the room" for the duration of this primary process, has done very well by most accounts as the governor of Ohio, and was one of the chief parties involved in the last balanced budget the federal government produced. Given that he's not likely to be indicted by the federal government during the campaign, I'd say he's the most qualified of the six candidates currently remaining in the race, on either side of the aisle. And the idea that he could come out on top in an open convention, where a deal could be struck for him to assume the nomination with perhaps Ted Cruz assuming the VP slot, is becoming a more likely, if still far off, possibility.
This isn't true. Each state sets the curriculum; and within the state, the curriculum is further determined by district. This is the reason the U.S. is a mess, in terms of education. It is the only industrialized nation on earth that doesn't have a unified philosophy about how to get kids from point A to point B. Regardless, at the state level (see Kansas, for example) education budgets are slashed. What Republicans want to do is starve the public education system into extinction. Then, they'll replace it with for-profit charters. As the Republicans see it, there is money to be made in the business of education, so let's take advantage of it. Problem is, the charter and private models of education are even worse, as corporations, donors, and investors start to determine curriculum and pedagogy.
So I don't know where you get your info, but control over public education is still residing with the states and districts, as it always has.