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
^:)^
Um....no. Hillary & Obama never discussed the relative "hotness" of each other's spouses or the size of their respective sexual organs. Their debates were (as you may recall) civil enough that Obama was able to offer Hillary a position in his cabinet, an offer which she easily accepted. Can you imagine President Trump offering Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio the position of Secretary of State -- or either of them accepting? I think not!
Obama offered Clinton the Secretary of State job. It's my view that if the tables were turned, it would not have happened the other way round. He did not hit below the belt (in fact he fought honourably with one hand tied behind his back). She, on the other hand, did, several times. I expect the same this time around no matter who the Republican candidate is in the General.
Hillary is no saint & knows how to fight dirty, no matter what her supporters say. It's just a different kind of dirty. She's already showed her hand a couple of times, including the quick tv appearance to capitalize on Chris Matthew's 'gotcha' abortion moment a few days back. She just may have found her match in Trump, which is why it will be a fascinating General election campaign.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/donald-trump-utilizes-racism-_b_8756816.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2010/01/loose_lips_or_dirty_tricks.html
Second, and I can't believe I'm defending Chris Matthews, as he should have been removed from the air several weeks ago for his conflict of interest in covering the presidential campaign, I don't think that asking Trump what his view on abortion, or anything related to the abortion issue, is a "gotcha" question. In fact, I don't really think that gotcha questions really exist. If you're running for president, then you have only two ways to address issues when raised. Either you've spent the time studying the issue and have developed a firm opinion, at which point you give the opinion and stand by it, or the second is you simply tell the person asking the question that you honestly haven't reached a decision on your stance on an issue, and will be more than happy to discuss it at a more appropriate time. I recognize that there are things that presidential candidates aren't going to know, especially those that are running from outside the system, at which point that second response is the appropriate response. But, by the same token, at this point in the race, it's time for Trump to know what he needs to know in order to be the POTUS. He's about to be given a 50/50 chance to lead the free world. He needs to know these things, and a reporter asking him his stance on a core issue of his own party isn't a "gotcha" question by any stretch of the imagination.
He was caught sleeping. His answer should have been your second option, namely, he does not respond to hypotheticals.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/oliver-stone-makes-impassioned-plea-sanders-hillary-clinton-has-effectively-closed
The man speaks the truth. The part about a shadow govt (even if he is known as a conspiracist) is particularly relevant. Any one who can't see them panicking right now (out in the open) is missing what's going on.
Rather a sweeping statement, considering we've never met.
Well said. Here in the US we have the luxury of not having to worry about our borders in any meaningful sense. Europe is a trickier place as far as immigration goes.
=)) Superb my friend!
Who is "them?"
Here is the part that's become the issue for Democrats: they have picked the wrong moment and the wrong candidate to start whining (again) about change. It's like, we don't learn. Carter. Clinton. Obama. All were liberal presidents but each eventually ran in line with the MIC, no matter their allegiance to liberal ideology. It's the nature of the beast.
You have referenced a key component (but not the only one) in the shadow government in this post yourself. It's the acronym, and its backers, customers and suppliers (nation states and companies).
1. Just to be clear: I'm not denying the shadow government part. Since this is a Bond site, I think what made CR and QoS work so well is that both films looked at the connection between politics and business interests. And this is why I didn't like SP as much, because the whole "evil organization" aspect is an outdated model, at least when money and business interests are not part of it. A really good example of a film looking at the "shadows": is The International, starring Clive Owen.
2. Bernie Sanders isn't going to change a thing. Will anybody? News reports just surfaced that CIA-armed groups are fighting Pentagon-armed groups in Pakistan. And we don't bat an eye. Y'know? I'm a cynic in this regard; to select a President based on instituting substantial change in how the government works is naive, and seeing this with a lot of young Democrats, touting Bernie as the instrument of change when, in fact, he's anything but.
I agree on the SP model being outdated as well. CR & QoS were far more current and realistic.
Total surveillance is always pursued by totalitarian regimes, such as the East German Stasi.
The Internet of Things, Big Data, and cognitive computing make this very scary for the future. How many of today's teenagers will go through their teens and twenties without posting anything on social media, or in private messages to their friends, that could not used to smear them in the future should they choose to enter politics. Or rather, how many normal teenagers...
Unfortunately for the world government, the model doesn't always work - especially for public figures whose private lives are already known and accepted by the public e.g. Donald Trump, Russell Brand etc.
@Troy
The global surveillance plot is fine. I guess I'm talking about the manpower and the money to pull that off...it takes manipulation. You have to get thousands of workers (maybe millions) to do this, and the only way you pull it off is by keeping them in the dark. I'm thinking in terms of all the computer geeks at the Spectre lair in north Africa. WTF are they doing there? Good pay? benefits package? They must live on the grounds, too. Who in their right mind goes to work for them??? This was a plot hole I overlooked in the early Bond films because of the Cold War. But today? No.
To me, there always needs to be some degree of explanation of how a select group of people manage to manipulate millions into doing their dirty work for them. That is the pure essence of evil. I think we saw that in CR and QoS, and in SF to some extent. It was missing in SP.
This article here is kind of interesting/scary:
http://panamapapers.sueddeutsche.de/en/
I like the illustration, which is very Spectre-like. It underscores my contention that onky a select few live in those shadows...everyone else is led to believe they are doing good work, public work, the work or God and children, the work of respect. All along, instead, they're just pawns in the game.
This is Mollaka in CR: just a bomb maker, a single guy, with a cause or maybe a need for money. He has no idea (or care) about the bigger picture and how his bomb is being used for wider financial gain. He's a pawn.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/27/1506967/-NPR-Despite-The-Math-Bernie-Sanders-Has-Already-Won?detail=emailclassic&can_id=985095505c70d5d38f722ad44dc98c33&source=email-npr-despite-the-math-bernie-sanders-has-already-won-5&email_referrer=npr-despite-the-math-bernie-sanders-has-already-won-5&email_subject=npr-despite-the-math-bernie-sanders-has-already-won&link_id=1
The current model would be a 'network model' with loosely connected but unrelated nodes carrying out the dirty deeds either for a cause or for money. Similar, ironically, to Al Qaeda, rather than ISIS (although ISIS executes its overseas attacks in this manner) or the Taliban.
Indeed, he has a symbolic victory no matter what happens. However, it will soon be forgotten and back to business as normal unless he actually wins, sadly. Until the next election, and Warren throws her hat in.
DUDE. I ELECT my Presidents.
They mostly never win is all.
:))
Ted Cruz will win the nomination.
All the Trump haters will wish him back desperately once they realise what a President Cruz will potentially mean for the free world.
At least that's what corporate media keeps saying. He won Wisconsin last nighf (by a YUGE margin). He's won 7 of the last 8 states.
Ultimately, I don't think Cruz will end up winning it. Trump, at this point, is the only candidate who actually can reach the 1,237 delegates needed to secure the nomination on the first ballot. Cruz likes to demean John Kasich and demand that he exit the race because he has no mathematical path to the nomination, but that rings extremely hollow and hypocritical because Cruz himself has no path to the nomination either, short of a contested convention, which is also the only way that Kasich can secure it.
As for wanting Trump over Cruz, I don't see many thinking that. While a Cruz presidency is far more frightening than a Trump presidency, Cruz is, amazingly, infinitely less electable on a national level than is Trump. Cruz will be destroyed in the general election by whoever the Democrats end up nominating. Trump would actually have a fighting, if still very much uphill, chance of winning against the Democrats.
I tend to agree but if this election process has proven anything at all so far than that everything seems possible.
Would you have foreseen Trump leading before Cruz and everybody else gone by April 16? I think anyone suggesting that would have been declared insane.
It will either be Trump (if he manages to convey the impression that he can step up to the plate, rather than self-implode, as he did prior to Wisconsin, the delegates will come round slowly) or it will be a consensus candidate, and the only one that makes any sense is Ryan.
All other options will not happen, imho of course.