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
Good riddance. The only downside to this is that it clinches the nomination for Donald Drumpf.
Even if the impossible did occur, I'm not sure that Bernie would be that much better than what we've got. None of his programs would make it to fruition, as Congress won't pass them. It's actually probably better for him to lose in this moment, as electing him and then not having the revolution happened as he's been promising might set back some of his ideas for decades, as the young voters might end up feeling betrayed. He's also woefully unprepared on the foreign policy end of things, which is concerning.
=))
I don't think he's all that far ahead of Trump in that regard, which is sad considering he's been in Congress for a very long time. He should be better on that front.
Hillary at least has an idea of what's going on out there. I disagree with just about all of her policy positions, with the exception of her opposition of the 2nd Amendment, but I don't think that she would end up starting a war out of sheer ignorance of the realities of global politics. I could easily see that happening with Trump and Sanders.
The only thing that Sanders can accomplish now is to move the Democratic party's platform further to the left to embrace some of his socialist ideals. He can also use the relative power he'll have at the convention to raise a fuss about how the Democrats select their nominee, i.e. the use of superdelegates and the closed vs. open primary issue.
But I agree with the rest of your post completely.
I've heard him speak and I'm not comfortable with him on foreign policy. You've heard him speak and are comfortable with him. That's perfectly fine.
That's not to say that I'm comfortable with any of them on foreign policy. I don't find any of them to be great candidates. Hillary just might be the least-bad of a group that is, IMO only, a bad field of remaining candidates. I'm glad that you have a candidate left in the field that you like. I wish that I did, Kasich notwithstanding, since he apparently hasn't gotten the memo yet that he doesn't have a path to victory.
Math doesn't lie. Math does not depend upon perception.
Give me a few thousand computations laid out in a hundred page thesis and I can prove it. But in the end it's all about emotion. Who makes you feel better (or less worse).
Bernie is the best candidate for thousands of reasons. Not the LEAST of which is foreign policy. Because leashing the dogs of Capitalism would FORCE a better foreign policy.
And looking to extrapolations of present actions & events balanced against past ones can give us a ball park estimate of outcome. History. It repeats. Just like an equation or solution.
Okay, time for bed. I don't get paid for this.
One is a stone-cold 24 karat nutter and the other a raging feminist who would not be in the running but for their gender (I'll let you work out which is which...).
Hilary Clinton once said that "Women are the true victims of war...left alone etc.'.
Excuse me? So the young boys & men - fathers and sons - who went through hell and either died or came back with crippling PTS syndrome are not the actual victims then..?
Great way to view the world, 'HilDawg'. Perhaps we can even further curb the rights of divorced fathers and finally remove all access to their children once & for all.
Europe may be going down the toilet - but I'm still glad as hell I don't have to live in the USA as an average, married father with a medium income, 'cos you guys are about to get a truly RAW deal of a government, either which way.
Anyway, especially for @FLeiter:
You know the difference between my country and yours? We probably won't even have time to call the US for help, 'cause you can drive a tank from one side of the country to the other in about three hours. The fact that the US has helped save Europe twice (mind you, the second time only after getting attacked self by imperial Japan) doesn't mean it's going to happen again. These days we talk to eachother and do agree that fighting is not an option. And anyway, do you have any idea what it is like beeing occupied?
The fact that most Europeans don't have your gung-ho mentality which did so much good in Iraq, doesn't mean we don't know how to fight when it comes down to it. Just check out who won this year's sniper competition....
The odd thing is that America seems dead set on not learning from the past, and sure as hell not from experiences of other countries. You want to know what happens when you use up most of your natural resources? Ask Iceland. haha, kidding, why learn from someone else when you can actually destroy your own country, which thankfully is so much bigger it can't sink.
To the republicans: unbridled capitalism indeed ends up in it's own destruction. Go and play monopoly with your family and find out for your self. And for the right feeling, use your real money. Let's see how your family reacts to you winning the game...
@Dalton, you're not comfortable with Sanders' foreign policies you say. Well, let's line up the candidates:
Trump: Thinks bombing is always a good solution against disgruntled foreigners, And waterboarding and other mideaval methods are good ideas too. Makes you more human, you see. Under Trump the US will most definately make more enemies then under all presidents since WWII combined.
Cruz: is now out of the running.
Clinton: pushes the trading agenda and seems willing to fight when the US big corporations get in trouble. Basically it's a continuation of the current policy.
Sanders: prefers to listen, prefers other countries to chip in (Here, @FLeiter, with Sanders it won't all hang on the US, guess you'll vote for him now?) and seems dead set on preventing more wars. He also doesn't like the big trade agreements, as they take power away from governments.
For those interested:
http://www.cfr.org/campaign2016/
Consider this as an example for all of us. When we're young, we depend on our parents for everything. As we mature, we move out of our parents home and set up our own place. We also assume responsibility for our own bills and our own lifestyle. If ask you your parents to fund your sports cars, your 2nd beachfront home and wardrobe, the chances are good they'll decline. Many countries continue to depend on the US and don't assume their own responsibilities for defense.
The US has to begin rebuilding the infrastructure of highways, bridges, water systems, airports and so many critical projects. An extra $40-50B saved from other countries is a step in the right direction.
In this instance it is not Hillary, who is being reactive even to Bernie within her own party. Her only weapon now will be 'fear'. Fear of the unknown. That will be her election slogan. She tried it in 2008, and it didn't work then.
History suggests she will be beaten this fall, and resoundingly, although surprises do occur. Trump could still implode, but if he doesn't, he is the next President, no matter what the polls say at this point.
However, as others have said, I will not be forced to select the lesser of two evils, and again, it's Bernie or bust for me. I hope he keeps winning and fighting off her corrupt ass for as long as possible.
Yes, they are both terrible. Bernie is too left wing for America.
afaik the bases in Germany are still open not specifically because the Germans want it, but as strategic choices made by the US and NATO. Many bases have closed the last ten years or so. It's true however that the Poles want the Americans around for fear of Putin. And again, that's as much their wish as American foreign policy.
Personally I don't think another arms race with the Russians will get us anywhere. I prefer trading with them, as that's been a good way to keep war out of Europe for the last 70 odd years.
If you look at what I actually said, I said that I wasn't comfortable with any of the candidates on foreign policy, not just Sanders.
I much prefer Rand Paul's take on foreign policy.
There are other things about Sanders that concern me, but that's all a moot point now anyway. I'm not going to comment any further on Sanders, as he has no path to victory in the Democratic primary (Bernie would have to capture 75% of the vote across the remaining primaries in order to close the gap between himself and Hillary in just the pledged delegate race, something that will not happen given the voting trends to this point).
Trump is a joke, but sadly a joke that has a very real chance of being elected president. We'll be able to mark 2016 down as the beginning of the steep decline in American history that ultimately brought about the end of the nation as an important figure on the world stage.
I'd actually consider voting for Clinton as opposed to against Trump if she'd actually come out and say that she wants to overturn SCOTUS' Heller decision. That would be a an important step in getting the US back on track, much like Obama's focus on healthcare was for his administration (even if they dropped the ball on it, the intention was good). I doubt she'd have the political will to do that, though, especially not during a campaign or a first term.
China being admitted to the WTO began it in my view (it was a license for the lopsided trade/deficit scenario we have now). 2003 and the debacle that began then exacerbated it. The financial crisis of 2008 accelerated it further. Obama was elected to transition that inevitable decline, but nobody realized it. He has done just that actually and is now being blamed for being weak, even though it was again inevitable.
Why do I think It was inevitable? Well, because there is only so much of the pie to go around and it's not growing fast enough for the population growth. Additionally, when you have the majority of the world population finally joining the 'capitalist' model, which is a winner take all one, inevitably there will be new winners.
Moreover, the pie is becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of fewer, due to global economic and trade policies that perpetuate this, and a system that favours land and capital 'owners' & 'rent seekers' at the expense of labour. This is the end game for capitalism as we know it. Either it will transition peacefully to a more equitable system (hopefully but unlikely), or the change will be violent due to a population revolt.
If Hills wins this election, watch for the 2020 candidates to be even more extreme. This is a wake up call that the status quo is entirely untenable.
The same thing is happening with Europe, which is in an even bigger state of mess. The 'muslim threat' serves as a distraction to create some sense of common social cohesion ('us' against 'them') but it's actually creating more tension.