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 respect you as a forummember. Sometimes I'd love to smack your ass. But it's good that we have at least one Trumpite who we can bully a bit :-P. You're a nice guy.
Oh good God. Here we go again.
Sanders is NOT getting the nomination. The WSJ hates HRC and WANTS a Sanders nomination.
People need to realize that HRC has not really campaigned all that hard the past six weeks or so. Why should she? It does her no good financially, does the party no good politically. SHE NEEDS BERNIE'S SUPPORTERS. And this is where Sanders is doing himself, his supporters, the Party, and the country an enormous disfavor: by going after HRC, knowing full well that she is not going to mount much of a counterpunch. She could if she wanted, and she'd wipe the floor of him. But she's sitting back and biding her time.
I'm not a big fella. Ever see Ant Man-?
Trip, I'm laughing at the superiour intellect.
:))
No, I am correct on this.
Why would Clinton want to go after Sanders and offend his delicate supporters? She has a general election to win and needs a unified Democratic Party to do so. She has the nomination sewed up and has for a while. She is not necessarily campaigning against him; she is campaigning against Trump. In the meantime, due to her lack of presence, Sanders's message is going unchecked, unbalanced, and unchallenged. So OF COURSE he's gaining momentum.
1. His lack of foreign policy experience and grasp of foreign policy issues. He's done one televised interview on this topic and looked as bad as Palin.
2. His inability to explain, cognitively, how he plans to get the country on board with a single payer healthcare plan. It won't happen, not when nearly half the country hates Obamacare as it is.
3. His inability to explain, cognitively, how he plans to get the country behind a "free college for everyone plan." This is the biggest snake oil political promise I have heard in a long time.
4. His inability to unite Democrats and his inability to campaign for those running for Congress. He has zero clout...because he wasn't a Dem to begin with.
5. His inability to explain how he plans to convince others to "take on Wall Street." It's easy to say "Yes, let's go get 'em" and quite another thing to have a specific plan, with support, to do so. He will have little support.
6. His inability to explain how a $15/hr minimum wage will be introduced to Congress and how he expects them to fall in line with that.
Sanders doesn't seem to grasp how the country works, let alone our own system of government.
Those are six, and there is no use of the dreaded "S" word.
Sanders is a charlatan, pure and simple. He's out of touch with reality, as demonstrated here: http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/13/technology/verizon-bernie-sanders/
A polite effue to you sir.
I shan't be asking for an opinion of any kind from you again.
I haven't gone to the lengths of insulting you. I have merely presented a view of Sanders...one that millions share.
You speak of "profit-driven" status quo...but you fail to recognize that that status quo used its money, power, and influence to derail anti-LGBT legislation in Georgia and has placed heavy pressure on North Carolina, who will likely bend to that pressure.
You know who has the power to force neo-Conservative views back into the dark places they shall remain? The ones with the money.
I am not driven by fear, and I am not controlled by any media outlet. Hell, I have shouted the the words of Eric Alterman on many occasions. Instead, I am driven by real-world experiences that tell me that it isn't the wealthy whom you have to fear. It's the wealthy with 19th-century viewpoints. There is a huge difference between Bill Koch and Mark Zuckerberg. There is a big difference between Sheldon Adelson and Bill Gates. If you can't see the difference, then I don't know what else to say.
To move society forward, you have to work with others, in a game of give-and-take. You think Martin Luther King closed himself off to people who could help him simply because he didn't agree with them on everything? You think Harvey Milk did the same?
You certainly mean well, but I have no time for children that have no sense of history.
(was that condescending? I was going for condescending.)
:))
=)) You silly!
I have no sense of history? LOL
:))
I haven't stated anything that is historically inaccurate. That's the funny part. Along with the fact that you didn't address any of the six points I made. Instead, you went to: car wreck. That's deflection.
That´s hilarious, I wonder why. Maybe because his reforms will threaten their monopoly by giving basic rights to the people they want to exploit, and force them to pay proper taxes for a change? Of course the propaganda machine will tell you that his ideas are not possible or do not belong in the "real world". However the reforms Sanders proposes have been working brilliantly through out many European countries for decades. Free health care, free college is something many europeans take for granted. In America however it is apparantly not possible and a threat to the economy. Will it be difficult to get these reforms through in a congress with a republican majority? Is it difficult to gain support for this in a country brainwashed with right wing doctrines? Definitely. But it is still worth a try as the people both deserve and need them.
Clinton's (Bill's that is) third way in the 90's, like Blair's in the UK, sold the left (and the working class) out. Now, it appears a comeback is afoot, in both countries.
The problem isn't necessarily with Sanders's ideas. It's the timing and the tone of them.
A campaign based on "Democratic Socialism" isn't the one America needs at the moment. At the moment, our issues, in terms of "Rights" are cultural and moral, more than economic. And as I have pointed out, some of those who are accused of monopolies and taking away basic rights are actually the ones who are helping preserve our rights. This may sound bizarre, but it's corporations and CEOs with financial clout who are derailing anti-LGBT legislation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2016/03/18/corporate-leaders-are-rallying-against-another-religious-liberty-bill-this-time-in-georgia/
The next President will likely be appointing three new justices. To me, this is a HUGE deal. And if you're concerned about basic rights, you should be too. A Conservative court will start allowing all kinds of BS discrimination in the name of "Religious Freedom."
My concern about Sanders is that he is aiming too far left and promising people cupcakes and unicorns. Instead, we needed unity and some gathering momentum for HRC.
I disagree that cultural and moral issues will take precedence during this election.
I believe this election will be won on the economy, jobs and national security. That is where the majority of the public are focused, imho.
That is always the focus. True. But abortion, LGBT/transgender laws, Religious Freedom, etc. are too. I do believe that HRC's commitment to abortion rights, progressive reforms for the LGBT community, and support for Obamacare, while also being strong on national defense, is the right move for 2016.
If Trump gets elected, it will be in part because of Sanders.
She didn't do enough to empathize with the real needs of the Sander's supporters. She can try to now, but it will seem inauthentic. Trump has done more to court them (on the economic and trade issues) than she has. It's not really her fault, because she is beholden, as pretty much any other 'establishment' candidate would have been.
The main issue with Hillary is she is just such a poor candidate, and cannot transcend her benefactors, unlike better politicians, like her husband and Obama. Even now, after two tries at the presidency, I have no idea what she stands for. What her personal convictions are, apart from political triangulation and maintaining the status quo (she even says that's what her aim is - for essentially an Obama third term). Her foreign policy speech yesterday was mainly focused on Trump, with little in the way of vision. Deep down, I wonder if she really wants the job.
The only thing that can save her now is a Trump implosion (very likely but not guaranteed by any means) or Barack Obama returning the favour done by Bill in 2012 (by bringing in the young vote as explainer in Chief).
But what if Hillary gets elected and Trump not? I think then it's equally safe to assume that for many people Trump was a too risky candidate to start with.
What do you mean with default position. Trump has already shown in the past three weeks that certain people start embracing him. Suddenly, many Republicans start supporting him, Paul Ryan to name one.
I for instance think that Trump has a serious shot at winning this election. BUT he needs to become more specific. Especially on foreign affairs. And then there's a slight chance that the people will buy Trump's ideas -nuking North-Korea and ISIS-.
Look, Trump is the official candidate now. Let's stop the story "Aaah, no one really thinks Trump can win". It's calling the kettle black and it basically means that one thinks all other people don't take Trump serious. Well I have a message then: Trump IS taken seriously now, Trump WILL be scrutinized to death.
At least you need to give Hillary credit for something: She takes Trump serious.....damn serious:
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/2/11843550/hillary-clinton-trump-risk
Still, my vote goes to Iron Lady Hillary :-).
Now it's going to be a real test. Of attrition and leadership. Of who can connect with the American public. Of who can make the best case for the future. Of who is a real leader. Of who can articulate the key issues in a way that convinces people. Of who is more trustworthy. Of who the American public want in their living rooms for the next four years.
In a nutshell, now is when it gets interesting.
From the convention onward momentum will be built and one candidate will come away with the win.
You're right, HRH (oops, sorry, I mean HRC) may still get the win, because demographics favour the Democratic party and she will have a lot of support from some heavy hitters, including the incumbent president, who is very popular. That is still what the odds favour.
Do you think Trump can articulate the key issues better than Sarah Palin did? I mean, wouldn't it be helpful if he......slows down on Twitter a bit? At least a.....tiny bit?
I like the fact that he speaks his mind. I like the same about Bernie. I don't like Trump's arrogance and crassness, but I don't let that get to me as much as it does others. I realize that's part of his New York character.
What an ironic opening post. LOL