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
But - what I am saying is - never mind, what is on the surface of the election debates, Trump doesn't care about climate and co and how to deal with it at all. All he cares about is how to make more money and will do that on the back of us all. He has no conscience (and even though conscience is rare in most politicians, I think, he has zero).
To have a man like this as US leader is the worst scenerio, that could possibly happen.
And I am not exagerating.
Oh and nobody would ask the US to LEAD climate change options, but we ask them to do something, as is their f***ing duty. With Trump, all efforts being made will be down to zero in a heartbeat. Remember my words...well, hopefully we don't have to.
I've only seen such disgust for Hillary and Ted Cruz in my memory (well maybe GW. Bush & Obama too), although that's mainly from Americans and divided on partisan lines.
Whatever happens, this will be a very interesting election season. Not many good choices on the table I'm afraid.
Almost all of them I'd reckon... Possibly discounting some of the East Block countries.
I don't know about that. Many of these so called democracies started up in the mid-1940's, others still have royalty and a few have just one political party. The only King we still have is Elvis Presley.
Congratulations to President Thread!
The US really isn't a democracy to begin with, so the argument that the rest of the world's democracies are more advanced is kind of moot, because any democracy is more advanced than what is happening here in the US. The US, and I think Bernie Sanders has said this on the stump, is an oligarchy. The nation is run by a select few of the rich, and the vote of the average Joe really isn't worth all that much.
The one time we see the vote of the average Joe start to amount to something is in this cycle, with both Trump and Sanders doing better than anyone expected. The general election was supposed to be a matchup of the last two political dynasties: Clinton vs. Bush. The Democrats are going to hold serve on that notion, nominating Clinton for the general election. We see the oligarchy in full effect on the other side as well, with the establishment railing hard against the candidate getting more votes than anyone else on the Republican side. Now, in this instance, the oligarchy is performing a public service by trying to keep Trump from the nomination, but the process has still shown the American process to be much less democratic than we'd like to believe that it is.
Frankly I think I'd rather take my chances with Trump than Angela 'open borders to IS' Merkel GL.
What's next? it can only get worse. The sad thing is this mess is entertaining but in a very bad way. Obama also needs to lay off the baseball games and tango lessons in the middle of a bad terrorist event. Bad optics as they say. I'm a moderate that has been deserted by both parties. The Rep's have gone too far right, and the Dem's too far left, and I'm stuck in the middle.
Being against Trump doesn't mean in my country things are great. If the topic title was german politics, I would be all over the refugees topic, but this is about US elections. So, don't mix up those two.
Trump would be the leader of the biggest country in the western world, which Merkel is not. He would have much more power to do things, that are really, really, really harmfull. And he will do them. All...
When they started up is irrelevant. What matters is where they are today. And are you actually suggesting that you can't have a democracy with royalty? If so you need to open your eyes and do some research into our European monarchies..
That is a fair point, I suspect you are dead right! I will also add that most modern democracies are also valued by how they treat the less fortunate in their society. That is another area where the US scores shockingly bad.
I am not sure about that. The best thing to be said about Trump is that at least he is not Ted Cruz. He is even more dangerous actually. And that's the most depressive thing... There are no decent alternatives on the Republican side.
The fact that the two candidates who've spent the least amount of money and have the least 'establishment' backing on both sides are doing this well on either side is a testament to American democracy. So was Obama's election against the odds (2008 was Clinton's moment - how dare the people upset that). As I have said before, the quality of the debate is definitely 'dumbed down' but eventually, there are other mechanisms in place (sensationalist 'gotcha' ones perhaps) that ensure the 'strongest', 'most authentic' and 'most resilient' candidate wins. That is an essential characteristic of being US president, more so than intellectual prowess. Sometimes the two intersect (Obama), and sometimes they don't (Bush).
As I said earlier, the problem is unbridled, unchecked capitalism. Not democracy. Take the money out of the system and dedicate a certain required number of hours on all channels (including cable news) to covering 'news' rather than 'entertainment news' and ensure organizations were 'balanced' rather than 'opinionated', and you will have a very different election campaign with better candidates. That's not perfect, but it's a start. Take the advertising out and create a different broadcast model for public campaigns.
"Unbridled, unchecked capitalism" and "democracy" don´t go well in hand in my book, that´s for sure. And takling about financial crisis, that is exactly what most of Europe is going through thanks to... you guessed it, US mockup. No country has made a greater job of intoxicating the world with violence, and thereby endangering European lives. "Protection"? You are a funny one :)
Just ask yourself this simple question: If your country was invaded at noon today, how long before your country's leaders call the U. S. President for help?
I disagree: this election will be fought, to some degree, on social issues. The backlash against two recent pieces of anti-LBGT legislation in Georgia and North Carolina seem to suggest that the country is moving left on these issues.
"Religious freedom" will also be an issue.
Stances on immigration and Muslim Americans will also be at the forefront. Those are as much social issues as anything else.
Gun control legislation could come up in the debates.
I see the debate on immigration and Muslim Americans more as a national security issue, but I can see how it can be viewed as a social issue as well, particularly if the Repub's overplay the security hand, as Cruz may have done recently with monitoring neighbourhoods etc. Religious and social freedoms will be considered as well, as you note.
I just believe that this time around, given the state of the world and economy, the priority will be given to national security, economics & leadership strength. I was wrong to imply that social issues wouldn't be considered however.
The problem for Bernie is going to be two-fold. First, while he's obviously not mathematically out of it, he's still going to have to make significant ground on Clinton that he's showed no signs of gaining thus far. He's doing well in his own rite, but he's going to have to win most of the upcoming states, and by significant margins, to catch Clinton in the pledged delegate count. Again, not mathematically impossible, but unlikely given the trajectory of the race thus far.
Secondly, even if he does make it a close race down the stretch heading into the convention, he still faces the issue of Super Delegates, which will put Clinton over the top, regardless of whether she hits the magic delegate count on her own or not.
The Democratic primary this time around has, in my view, really shown itself to be very undemocratic. The obvious offender here is the Super Delegates, and while I despise the idea of them in a vacuum, the situation on the Republican side is showing why someone at some point in time thought that they were a worthwhile idea. What the Republicans wouldn't do to have a cache of Super Delegates right now. Anyway, though, I think the media's reporting of the Super Delegates has been the biggest issue. They almost always include Clinton's Super Delegate total in with her pledged total, making her lead seem insurmountable each time they show the number. Has this had an effect on the race? It's hard to tell at this point, but I'm sure it will be looked at by someone in the post-election reflection period, and I would be surprised if it didn't have some kind of effect on the race, albeit certainly not a degree significant enough to actually change the outcome on its own.
The second issue the Democrats (and Republicans) have had this time around is the scheduling of the primaries. The heavy focus on the South in the early going was clearly intended to favor Clinton. She racks up win after win down there, because that's where her base largely is (i.e. more moderate or right-leaning Democrats as well as minority groups that she is heavily favored by) whereas Sanders' base is largely located in the northern areas of the country, which haven't been a huge focus of the early slate of voting, and we're now just coming around to their primaries and caucuses. Now, to be fair, Clinton did well in a couple of those, but by that point in the race, the narrative of her inevitability had already been written, due to her near-sweep of the South, which no doubt had some effect on some of the races in the North. Then there's the fact that Clinton's wins are, many of them, coming in states that she's not going to win in the general election anyway.
The Republicans have had the same issue with the primary scheduling, but it's hard to tell whether or not it would have been done intentionally to try to back a particular candidate, and there's also the fact that those states are generally the Republican strongholds anyway, so I don't think it had quite the effect that it did on the Democratic side. But, having a more diverse slate of states in the early rounds of primary voting could have helped given more moderate or Liberatrian-leaning Republican candidates, like John Kasich, Chris Christie, or Rand Paul more traction in the race and helped them be more viable as candidates for a longer stretch.
Nature approves of Bernie.
I am 90% certain that Hillary Clinton will be the next President. There really is no drama here; the media is creating it to sell news, but they all know that HRC is the only reasonable choice the American people have.
Now, as for that wish list, most of it depends on the Democrats' ability to take over the senate, and based on what we are seeing, as far as Republicans at the state level doing what they can to limit voting and access to polling locations (in other words, rigging the game), I don't see it happening.