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
That sounds to me more like a politician trying to change topic, again a common tactic. I can't see the racism there, accept for those committing the attacks. This is a very reaching 'guilt by association' type charge.
Three words that describe your understanding of, well, most everything I would assume. =))
A politician with any backbone would have immediately condemned the attack and not offered his "supporters" any semblance of cover for their actions. It doesn't take any intellect whatsoever to see what happened and immediately condemn it. Just like it shouldn't have taken Trump several hours to disavow his KKK and white supremacists endorsements.
It's not "reaching" for guilt at all. It's a simple case of listening to what Trump says and realizing that it's heavily laced with a good dose of racism.
But, what do I know. I'm just a confused, naive "libertarian".
If you are someone who is socially leftwing and economically rightwing, you're a Libertarian.
I'm not socially leftwing.
There is a need for tighter border controls, there is a need for more immigration control in this era of ISIL & ISIL inspired attacks globally (I've always wondered why folks who visit Turkey in particular for example are not more aggressively checked/questioned, especially when they can easily slip into Syria from there), and there is probably a need for the FBI to beef up their efforts to monitor activities and individuals who may have malicious intentions.
Now, how could one go about improving the security aspects without racial profiling? Without infringing on people's rights? What's the right balance to strike in this era of asymmetric & lone individual attacks? That is the big question that we've had to wrestle with since 911. Sadly as the number and intensity of attacks increase (as they seem to be), there will have to be more debate about the methods needed to counter and prevent them. We did see a few weeks back that a man with bad intentions only needs a lorry/truck to do significant damage, and not only a gun.
@Mendes4Lyfe, you have a knack for taking the least important part of a post and really focusing on it more than the stuff that actually matters.
It baffles me how you think all Muslims, all over the world are terrorists in the making, and are completely worthy of massive surveillance and prejudice at the hands of people like Trump and his cronies. I've met my share of Muslims throughout my time at university, hailing from all over, and the argument that those around the world sharing that ideology are all evil or eager to blow themselves up in the name of Allah is false. Just as it's not true that all those of a Catholic or Christian faith have to believe or support everything they fear, neither must they. Faith and belief comes in many forms.
At the end of the day, we're all human beings, and if someone is doing no harm or ill-will to you or others, they don't deserve to be set upon like they're a rabid dog or a monster. It's clear to see that Trump doesn't give a damn about recognizing humanity, however, as he'd be more than eager to reinstate Guantanamo torture tactics on someone whether they're really a terrorist or not, and his go-to solution is to blow things up or beat them into submission. What a diplomat.
Then you aren't in favour of small government like you originally stated.
We can.
:))
You're lost.
The GOP Platform as it relates to the 10th Amendment sums up my view, as well as, of course, the GOP, on limited government (and, to emphasize, I'm not endorsing the entire platform in any way, shape or form). This is from the same party that is right-leaning on social issues, proving that one can lean right on both.
Interesting, so these thousands of cases of violent crimes are commited by just a tiny minority, but the few individuals you met at uni represent the vast majority?
Believing in Dogma of any kind is far from sensible. Of course people have the right to do it, but that doesn't make it sensible.
Thanks for making the point for me, @JawsIsAlive. Didn't think it'd need clearing up, but there you have it.
Seeing as America is recognized as a Christian nation and is stock full of people in governmental power that believe in dogma and the big man in the sky, especially your sacred right wingers, watch who you're calling silly. Given some of your posts I've read, you would fit right in with the circus.
Oh, so THAT'S why you say such nonsensical things. Message received, signing off...
@BeatlesSansEarmuffs, were you not aware of the deity Aidan Turner that he prays to five times a day, and ten times on Sunday?
This awful demagogue must be beaten, for the sake of our collective humanity.
It is likely to be quite polarizing, but he did convincingly double down on the 'strength' and 'change' argument, and credibly positioned himself as someone who will fight for America and the voter.
Not what I was expecting certainly, but I came away thinking that he believes what he says. There was a distinct righteous indignation and authenticity to it, even if I didn't agree with all of it.
Frightening, I think, seems to be an operative word to describe the speech. He had a chance to pivot and try to win over undecideds. Instead, I think he made up their minds for them, but not in the way he wanted.
Sadly, though, I had a sinking feeling while watching that speech, as awful as it was, that we're about to elect that man President of the United States. Trump is right on one thing, there are frightening times ahead, but they'll be because of his presence in the White House, not because of any of the things he talked about tonight.
Washington is broken, and it does need to be fixed, but not by this man.
Unfortunately, this seems to be exactly where Trump excels.
Hoping for Hillary to crush him in the debates feels like something of a last resort. We've already had 16 other people completely fail to do this, so now Hillary feels like that free safety who is the only person left between the receiver and the endzone.
She's very good in a policy-driven debate, but we all know that Trump is going to try to pull the three debates down into the gutter where he does his best work.
Let's just hope that she (and hopefully Gary Johnson) will be able to put a stop to this madness in the debates and not leave this thing as an uncertainty heading into election day.
One can only hope.
But, as someone who despises his party's nominee as much as the other, it's going to be a long 100 or so days until the election.
It's a sad state of affairs when, with all of the talented people in this country on both sides of the aisle, that these are the best two we can come up with as a nation.
Please @bondjames, stop with this nonsense! Being 'genuine' and 'believing what you say' is ok I guess, but it is not really a virtue if what you say is nonsensical, rambling, rampant hate speech with the purpose of invoking fear in people, is it? And believing in outright lies is the share definition of ignorance, isn't it? You have clung on to the idea that Trump will suddenly and magically reveal himself as a reasonable and fair person who only has been using som exaggerated retoric to win voters, yet at the same time you claim 'he is genuine and believe what he says'. That doesn't make much sense to me, and we have yet to see any sign of rational or sanity hidden behind his words. Why insist that it has to be there at all?
And on the point that actually matters (but yet is somehow lost in the American run for presidency...), political debate: Is it really the case that what America needs is tighter border controls? For me it seems quite obvious that the biggest threat to USA, wether in the high branches of office or on the street, with or without guns or money, comes from within.