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 hope you're right, but I have little faith in the American electorate. All we hear about is the need for change and how bad Congress is, yet the re-election rate for the legislature hovers somewhere around the 90% mark.
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/06/forget-party-unity-the-new-dnc-email-leak-means-th.html
The fix was in against Bernie. [-(
By the way, GOP's party unity vs. DNC's party unity: there's a difference.
I say no.
Accepting the status quo?
FUCK Hillary. And her WAR/MID agenda.
She can't have my vote.
And those of many others.
Let's see how well The Donald can rule, eh?
There was no fix. Bernie has been a democrat for 5 minutes. He used the Democratic party to run because he knew he'd get nowhere running as an Independent. Now he is demanding that the Democratic party do exactly what he tells them to, even thought he lost the nomination by millions of votes. He attacked the concept of Super delegates, all the while demanding that they flip to him. Super Delegates are all Democratic party electives who are loyal to the Clintons because both Bill and Hillary have raised the tens of millions it took for the down ballot types to get elected over the decades while Bernie has never raised a dime for Democratic candidates other than a few bucks for one or two buddies, at most.
Bottom line, Bernie is demanding loyalty from a party he has simply used but given no loyalty to over the years. Yeah, he is in the party caucus but that is in his self interest. With each passing day he becomes less and less relevant in the general election. Clinton will go to the middle and her Veep choice will reflect that. All the talk about Clinton needing Bernie's kids in the general misses the age old fact that young eligible voters are notorious for not bothering to vote in the US. Moderates and Independents will win or lose this election for Clinton, not Bernie's kids. Bernie could yet pull a Nader but he would then get seriously screwed over by the Democrats in Congress. He wants to Chair the powerful Senate Rules committee. There is only one route for him to that post. And that is by helping Clinton beat Trump and electing a Democratic Senate. He can count. He is desperate to get that job as it has real power. He will fall in line.
He can't. We already know that.
"Blow up the board if my side can't win!"? You're too much of an adult for that kind of childish thinking, @chris. Vote for the Green Party candidates if you like. I certainly hope @dalton will vote for the Libertarian candidates rather than sitting this one out. If somebody absolutely wants to see the end of the two-party system then voting for the third and fourth party of your choice is absolutely the way to go and there's no better election for it than this one here&now. But the Donald has made it quite plain to any thinking person that he's not capable of doing the job, and I'm pretty confident that a second Clinton presidency is on the way. Now in all honesty folks: was the first one so bad, aside from the Republicans deciding to make an issue of Bill's sex life?
=D>
Again: you don't really seem to get it. You just don't. BS was in no way, shape, or form going to change the MID. He just wasn't. And given that he's a Jew*, you really think he was going to buck Netanyahu? You're nuts! BS talks the talk...but he can't walk the walk: http://gawker.com/bernie-sanders-suspends-staffer-for-criticizing-israeli-1771110775
*as am I
PS: You may have forgotten, @chris: I voted for Bernie in the CA primary. And I'll be happy to vote for Hillary in the general election. I think you over-estimate the nilhilsm quotient in the average American voter. "Give it to the Donald & let's see how badly he can screw things up!" isn't a game most of us are willing to play. I already played "Oh, let the Shrub have his way for 4 years, he can't screw things up THAT badly!" back in 2000...I'm not going anywhere near that road ever again!
You say you want a revolution...well, you know -- we all want to change the world...
:))
And I think the level of screw-up that Donald will bring upon the country will be far worse than anything W could have ever thought up in his wildest dreams. It's bad when you take a position so far to the right that even the NRA thinks it's a bad idea. If you're spewing so much nonsense that you make Wayne LaPierre sound reasonable, then you're unfit for office, period. There's really zero debate that can be had at that point, because as a candidate you've gone officially off the deep end when the NRA looks like the reasonable one.
I'm still hoping that the Republican delegates manage to overthrow Donald at the convention. It sounds as though that effort is gaining some steam, as there may be some old rules from previous conventions that they may be able to put in place to give them just enough wiggle room to get enough of them unbound on the first ballot to deny him the nod. They need to forget about the optics of the situation and put the welfare of the nation first and foremost, and not allow Donald to secure the Republican nomination.
Whatever. Hillary is shit. Trump is shit.
No Bernie, no deal.
Let the chips fall where they may since it's all a game of thrones anyway.
And as to whether or not the Republican Party is willing to go with the nuclear option and unbind the delegates...well, we will see. I know lots of people who are stocking up on popcorn to consume while watching the convention. The entertainment factor should be pretty high...
Angry here...
Which is highly understandeable. Thing is, if Bernie's not in the race but Donald is, and many people vote for him just to spite Clinton, it's not only the US economy that will crash. I've never ever been scared of any President abusing the Nuclear power the US have, but Donald is a loose cannon. He might even want to nuke the middle east. Hillary's got a bad track record when it comes to foreign policy, true, but Donald is in a completely different league. He'll make Kim-Jong-Un like the sensible guy....
So you're telling me he's actually a very stable guy, who's put foreward a picture of an inconsistant big bully because he thinks that actually improves his chances of becoming president?
The only country I know that has had such unpredicteable behaviour in foreign affairs is North Korea, and I don't see it working for them. It's just scaring the living daylights out of everybody, endangering world peace. So even if it's part of a strategy, it's a very dangerous one.
This man is running for President of the United States. This is not an on-the-job-training kind of gig where you can learn it as you go. It is paramount to have some semblance of understanding of the requirements of the position that you seek, and Donald has shown no desire to learn what he needs to know in order to effectively govern, nor has he decided to show anything resembling the temperament that is required in order to lead the United States and steer global policy.
When it's all said and done, even if Donald only gets half of what he wants done, the world could be a drastically different place, and not for the better. We could be facing a world where nuclear proliferation, despite decades of effort to curb the spread of nuclear weapons, is running amok, with Donald willing to give nations like Japan nuclear weapons in lieu of US protection. We could also be bankrupt after he decides to default on the US debt, not to mention his desire to isolate us from the rest of the world by severely altering (or disbanding) NATO. If he's going to allow nuclear weapons to proliferate around the globe, then we're going to need NATO and the UN once those weapons start falling into the wrong hands. But by that point we won't be able to count on the rest of the world for help because Donald will have pissed them all off and they'll all (rightfully) take great pleasure in our demise at the hands of our asshole in chief.
I don't share your optimism. I get the impression he's a dealmaker based on small print and bullying. That will neverreassure your friends. Those relationships are built on long time trust, not short term profit.
Funnily enough I don't think anyone on this side of the pond was worried about Obama's international policies. And when he came to power he did what he promised. The friendly approach to Cuba will end it's isolation, and probably ease it's regime, as is already happening. Even Fidel wasn't as nasty towards the US as he normally is. This might be the start to a more democratic and prosperous Cuba.
He caught Osama, and tried to prevent huge human losses. All in all not bad if you ask me.
Trump is completely different to this in every single respect. Calling all Mexican immigrants thieves and rapists, allthough 'some, I assume, are great people'. But he isn't against Mexicans, he likes the rich Mexicans as they 'buy my appartments'.
If that's great presidential material......
Couldn't agree more. Donald will get nothing done as president, as Congress and everyone else that he has to negotiate with will rightly tell him to shove it when he starts in on his usual "negotiating" tactics.
Can't wait to see Congress' reaction when he tries to put a "TRUMP" sign on Air Force One and the White House.
I'm not saying Trump is the answer, but at least he is posing the questions and willing to look at things in a different and more creative way. I'm all for that. Let's have the debate with friends and let's come up with new answers for the world that we have now (and not the world from 50 yrs ago). If not, let the US continue on its way to bankruptcy.
His campaign approach is a pain in the butt, but conflating that with his intellect is a mistake. He is unconventional in the way he approaches things, but from my perspective is asking the questions that needs to be asked on a variety of things.
If you're telling me Clinton is better on foreign policy then I have to strongly disagree. I know only one thing for certain - after 8 yrs of peace (thanks to Obama), we will have a catastrophic war under Clinton. We will revisit here once that happens, if she wins.