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
I believe both Trump and Bernie are anti-establishment because they are able to call it like it is. The way they speak suggests they don't care about the consequence.
That is what is appealing to a section of the voters, and refreshing.
It depends on who you ask. Some are troubled that he still, despite now being the GOP nominee for President, has yet to articulate anything that resembles a specific approach to any one policy. Others are troubled by his singling out a specific ethnic group to deny entry into the United States. Others are offended by Trump saying that a woman should be punished by the federal government for having an abortion.
With Trump, it doesn't really come down to which of his policies people are upset with, though, because on the vast majority of them, we have zero idea where he stands. So, all we're left with is the fact that he's decided to portray himself as a racist and a bigot.
He has suggested that until the government finds a way to get a grip on who they're letting into the country, there should be a temporary ban on muslims entering. There's a specific reason he has suggested this religious group in particular and that should be self-evident, given the ISIS problem (including folks going back and forth from war zones). Why they're permitted to do that so freely without additional checks amazes me. The point being there needs to be 'checks', and again he brings the point to our attention, even if in an exaggerated way.
He was asked a hypothetical on the abortion issue by Chris Matthews, who pushed him for an answer when he was dilly-dallying and he stepped in it - it's obvious to me that this is not a priority of his. MSNBC went nuts that night trying to make meat out of it, particularly Rachel Maddow. It was laughable. It's a testament to Matthews that he backed away and didn't make a big deal out of it because he realized it was unfair but Maddow couldn't contain herself.
The illegal Mexican thing is just self explanatory. That's going to be impossible to implement, but the wall is a first step in saying it's not going to be that easy to get in any more. Plays perfectly into 'Western World fears' about refugees etc (in the old country) as well, so just good politics this year. Other enforcement mechanisms should be beefed up as well and I'm sure they will be, including drone surveillance etc.
It's going to be a fun campaign. Once again, ignore the fluff. The economy will determine this election imho. Whoever is seen as better on it will be the next President.
The other factor is status quo. Those who like where we are will likely vote for Hillary as the successor to Obama, and she is positioning herself that way. Those who want a change from it will go for Trump most likely.
At LEAST Hillary has experience. Donald is an ignorant gambler.
I fear for the civilized world. AND the backwards-ass he-man-women-hater badlands.
8-|
As I've been saying for some time here, Hillary will not be able to that. It's impossible. The other side absolutely hates her and it's been ingrained for 20+ yrs (they're still trying to witch hunt her). So we will get an inevitable soap opera side show if she gets the job. Cruz will grow in stature as opposition which is probably what his game is now.
On foreign policy she is absolutely useless. Bernie is correct on her judgement and I said that on this thread before he did.
Trump can get Republican congressional buy-in once they all kiss and make up, and his policies are actually more pacifist apart from wanting to decimate ISIS (where Obama has actually been holding back - Putin did more damage to them than he did because he was futzing about trying to help the 'free Syrian Army'- cough).
So at the end of the day, the pick is status quo or change. I don't buy the fear mongering.
Sounds pretty much like Predator vs. Alien; no matter who wins, WE lose.
:-?
Trump is better for me because he is a middle of the road guy (for a Republican) and so given that party has the most vociferous and obstructionist Congress, I think having him in charge to whip them in line is better than the alternative.
=))
The 'puddy tat' is on his head. =))
Not exactly. HRC is the only choice. The MIC is going to get fed no matter what. Wall Street is going to get fed no matter what. So it comes down to culture wars/domestic policy. It's here that the Dems have a serious edge.
I thought Chris Christie was their most viable option but he was too close to the middle and not in step with the far right, religious right, Tea Party wack jobs who are taking over the party. They would have been best served to put their weight behind Christie months ago, but they feel like they need the hate mongering, race baiting, mysoginist types to call the shots.
ENOUGHT THIS IS NOT WHAT AMERICA IS ABOUT.
We are the laughing stocks of the world community. President Obama had restored prestige and respect to office (after Dubya and his band of criminals destroyed our standing). President Obama is a poster child as to why these so call "patriots' love America. Instead of saying, "Look who we elected, isn't America Great. Anybody can rise to the top here". But no, they stoop to the disrespect of a good president and his family because he's the "wrong color"
And after all the disrespect from American media here in America,. the land of opportunity one of the major parties put forth a candidate who appeals to the baser instinct of human nature.
I do not want to live in the America of "Mad Men" those days are done and we cannot go back.
As a UK resident, I don't get to see all the press coverage or any of his speeches, only snippets on the news, but he does seem misrepresented - or maybe not, it is difficult to tell.
On the abortion issue, my understanding was that Trump answered a theoretical question that if abortion was illegal, then the woman should be prosecuted. (He then changed to saying only the doctors should be prosecuted). Not sure the issue there. If you do not want the mothers prosecuted, then make abortion legal. Not sure why it's more acceptable to prosecute the medics and not their customers.
On Muslims entering the US, I think the interesting part of the quote was "until we figure out what's going on". Some might say the last thing the government wants is for the people to "find out what's going on"
On the Mexican wall, I'm still not clear why people oppose - is it because it is regarded as (a) impractical, or (b) xenophobic? Either way, I've not seen a rational discussion in the press - simply the usual telling us what to think
I'm intrigued to find out how much Trump believes his own rhetoric - and how much was playing to the gallery. After all, politicians are not exactly known to slavishly following through on election pledges
Once again, you've got it. It takes an ability to understand English, but strangely that last part is often missed in the 'headline' quotes as is the overall point about tracking folks who go and back from war zones and sensitive areas while this ISIL thing is going on.
Once again, it's an inability to understand English and a tendency to soundbite things in the media. The issue is 'illegal' Mexicans, and not Mexicans. Nothing wrong with that in my book.
This remains to be seen. I suspect he will in practice have a more practical and slightly toned down approach to these things. So there will be a wall and tighter border controls but no deportations (not practical). There will be tighter checks on folks going in and out of Syria and the like but no overall ban. I don't think he cares about abortion, which is why he couldn't answer the question. That wedge issue is not his priority.
The issue is securing boarders and assuring security.
Another issue is reforming the the citizenship process. Should it really take that long or how long should it take?
"The study of the psychopath reveals an individual who is incapable of feeling guilt, remorse or empathy for their actions. They are generally cunning, manipulative and know the difference between right and wrong, but dismiss it as applying to them."
BINGO! Maybe he is just borderline, but I'm am beginning to think he comes very close to this description.
Trump won because of his cunning, a total lack of any political philosophy and a hugely divided field of 16-17 candidates who split the anti Trump vote. When it finally came down to Cruz, he was simply too unappealing and too late to harness the anti-Trump vote. Kasich was too moderate, particularly in the closed primaries and caucus states which don't favor moderates. It has just become obvious to me that Trump will say virtually anything to make money, and now to win an election.
To those in here who think the Republican operatives will "kiss and make up," yeah, sure. To those who think "change" is good, Change to what ---- when you are dealing with a man who is incapable of working with anyone he can't dominate or bully.
George Bush's rep this morning said he will not comment or play any role in the election. This of course is a result of Trump calling him a liar, an unprecedented comment by the nominee regarding the last President of his party. Add to that Trumps' slimming of Jeb.
Then we have "lying" Cruz and his conservative following. Trump accused Cruz's father 2 days ago of being a party to John Kennedy's assassination. Anyone who thinks Cruz and his followers will "kiss and make up" after that comment needs a serious reality check. That was a huge error by Trump even if his buddy at the Inquirer tabloid that is backing him first brought it up. You simply do not go there. Trump has no self restraint, zero. Fingers on the nuclear trigger anyone.
Trump will do and say virtually anything to get elected. He has been on every side of every social issue over the recent past. Sanders young followers are notorious for not voting in general elections. They will not be the deciding factor. The Clintons have a huge cadre of party operatives who will register and get out the black, Hispanic and female vote. But it will, I think, come down to the Independents and moderate Republicans. The blue color Dem's aren't a big enough block in light of the huge Hispanic voting population that has grown over the last 2 decades and will easily outvote that group. If the moderates can't stomach Trump, Hillary will win big and possibly carry the Senate with her.
I am no fan of Hillary and she has a lot of baggage that I don't like. I have not voted for either presidential nominee before because I couldn't stand either candidate, but like a lot of moderates, I will hold my nose and vote for Hillary. The stakes are too high. I have come to find Trump really dangerous, and I think most US voters will feel the same way. Events could likely decide this election, but if there are no huge events that could greatly sway voters, Trump will go too far if he hasn't already, and blow it. His own words will kill him off.
I think you are heading for another Clinton President personally but i guess we will have to all wait and see?
The U.S.A, even more so than Western-Europe, is run by Wallstreet and the Fortune 500 brigade - as demonstrated by the U.S government's impotent non-reaction after the 2008 economic collapse (read: 'credit ratings fraud' collapse) to curb financial 'betting' activity & properly sanction & regulate the credit rating agencies.
Anyone who thinks the president has a say in all this is kidding themselves, I'm afraid...
'Cos whatever happens - you can always count on the good old taxpayer to come to the rescue.
Try the past election for example...who's better, Romney or Obama? Or for fun, how about Kasich versus Sanders? Please don't take offense, but this game's too easy to play.
@DaltonCraig007, Zeus might even look at John and say, "Really, McClane?!" not believing him, and John will just reply, "Hey, we're Brooklyn boys."
To be fair though, John strikes me as a big conservative, and a progressive like Bernie I think would in some cases be a source of laughter and ridicule to him.
There was a script this big Die Hard fan wrote a couple of years ago (and that he was trying to get the studio to make) where, at the 30th anniversary of the Nakatomi plaza takeover John is back in the building with his family and friends to receive an award there for his heroism, when something big goes wrong and Déjà vu strikes, forcing him to save everyone all over again. I'm not sure if there was a Gruber connection or if it was something else.
The cop from Die Hard 1 was in the script, as was Zeus, John's wife and kids. I'd love to see that movie as the final Die Hard.
It's funny, I'm watching Die Hard 1 on TV right now.
Down here (from your viewpoint) it is:
Clinton is bad.
Trump is more bad.
Dumb and Dumber ! .... Either choice is not looking good. :D