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
He called for the assassination of his opponent for that same office...
DOJ ? Homeland Security ? Secret Service ?FBI ? Where are you?
Republican Leadership not throwing him under the bus (speaker Ryan in particular)
What is going on here?
Police officers kill unarmed citizens over minor traffic infractions and violations and this rich man is able to commit serious offenses and nothing is done?
America is an obligarchy...Period.
Support murder? Her husband is in favor of capital punishment.
Clinton voted for the Iraq War...
She wants to keep the tradition of terrorizing the Middle East (a western practice that has gone on since the Crusades)
But I trust her with our nuclear codes and appointing federal judges more than the Trumpster.
oh and here is the video bit that works (giant suction cups ..!)
Well, Trump is already losing the election. He might still win, but so far he's been digging his own political grave.
Moreover, my quote above says 'if she wins': a point that has obviously been missed by you during your attempts to be disparaging.
Insults here, selective posts to make your point, abusive photo posts there. Hmm.
Selective no more my dear @BondJames ;-). Like I said on page 94 the game is far from over. And these recent articles on Politico.com and TheNation.com basically enhance my worries. They give a fresh perspective on worries within the Democratic Party. So for every Hillary-supporter, please hold your breath:
Top Democrats warn against writing off Trump:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/top-democrats-warn-against-writing-off-trump-226855
Are Hillary Clinton’s Strong Poll Numbers Misleading?:
https://www.thenation.com/article/are-hillary-clintons-strong-poll-numbers-misleading/
From now on I will try to focus my posts about, in posting some very interesting 'Pro-Donald!' articles and 'Pro Hillary!' articles.
PRO HILLARY!
Clinton Has Nearly Caught Up To Trump In Media Coverage:
The media coverage about Trump has been frequently discussed. On many occasions The Donald has complained that the media is biased and is nothing more than one big arm of Hillary's campaign. Well, is that true? On FiveThirtyEight.com (please bookmark it) there's this interesting article that looks into the media coverage for both candidates:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-has-nearly-caught-up-to-trump-in-media-coverage/
Regardless of being pro-Hillary or pro-Trump media coverage, Donald Trump is most certainly the winner when it comes down to media coverage. 'The Big Arm Of Hillary's Campaign' surely wasn't strong enough to let Hillary win the amount of media coverage. Is it because....Trump is a master (or a fool) in drawing all attention to his campaign for the right (or wrong) reasons?
Clinton's Lies, Trump's Damned Lies:
The comparison is as interesting as this one, that is focusing on the lies uttered by both the Trump campaign and the Clinton campaign. Electoral-Vote.com:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2016/Pres/Maps/Aug08.html#item-8
Now, I am seriously worried about this. Perhaps the reasons why people (especially non-educated, white, working-class men) swallow Trump's lies more easily than Clinton's, is the mere fact that Trump is an outsider, and Clinton is an insider. Trump is open and clear about his lies, whereas Hillary talks around it all the time. Yet, in both cases we still need to look at the core definition of a lie. And if we don't do that anymore, than our society does have a problem.......an worrysome ethical problem in which morale doesn't matter anymore. Except the person who's uttering the lie.
PRO DONALD!
New Hillary Clinton Emails Suggest Aides Intervened on Behalf of Donors:
We still have to wait for a big 'October Surprise' presented by Raoul Silva.....ehh, sorry.....Julian Assange. But the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch is delivering us the first course on a menu that's best served chilled. And this article from Time.com is indeed a worrysome. Like my previous post on page 94, this article gives you some insight in the Clinton Foundation and its SPECTRE-esque tentacles:
http://time.com/4446418/hillary-clinton-emails-donors/
An October Surprise For Hillary Clinton:
In case you really believe in the Bond film 'Skyfall' turned into reality, then this could do it. An 'October Surprise' really is on its way. As we know already, WikiLeaks did some serious damage with regard to the Democratic National Committee (pro-Russian hacker Guccifer 2.0). Chairman Wasserman-Schultz had to step down. And ad-interim chair Donna Brazile is still busy cleaning the mess. Julian Assange already hinted that next in line of damaging leaks could be Hillary Clinton herself. From PoliticalWire.com:
https://politicalwire.com/2016/08/09/an-october-surprise-for-hillary-clinton/.
Make no mistake, @BondJames several times said that all these hacks and leaks are only sidetracks. But I think they could become damaging if new leaks give away some dirty information about one of the Clinton Foundation's 'bundlers' (people, and even foreign nations contributing $10.000,- or more). If one of these 'bundlers' have actively funded some efforts to get co-founder Hillary Clinton elected as US-Senator or...President, then that's damaging. Make no mistake, I hate men like Julian Assange, and I think for that reason he should hack Trump's tax returns. He might even imply that a former DNC-employee turned into a WikiLeaks informant and was killed for it. But fact is, the Democrats were hacked, and they should be serious about this.
You mean the articles I just posted @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 (sjee, what a nickname :-P )
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/film-how-to-destroy-a-presidential-candidate/
How Vice President George H.W. Bush overtook Dukakis in the polls and won the election. And the fundamental question is: Do campaigns have defining moments?
Having watched the above documentary, makes me think that the 2016 campaign is on some aspects quite similar to the 1988 campaign. Like 1988, when a Bush presidency felt like a 3rd Reagan term, this year could feel like a 3rd Obama term if Clinton gets elected.
What I mean is, when people consistently say, "Hey, don't write off a Trump victory," I think they are really only saying, "Watch out for our nation's voters, some of these fools are imbecilic enough to vote Trump in!"
I prefer using the quote "Hey, don't write off a Trump victory" and stick to it. Realists go across partylines. You have Democratic realists, Republican realists, and most of these realists agree one one thing, again: "Hey, don't write off a Trump victory"
Clinton has turned the general election campaign (since the Convention) into a referendum on Trump rather than a referendum on Obama. So far it's working, in no small part due to Trump's own missteps, and with media complicity. The debates give an opportunity for him to turn that around and establish himself as a credible alternative, or conversely Clinton cleans his clock and moves forward with a commanding lead and onto a win.
What we're seeing now is an 'as expected' well funded campaign to solidify opinions about Trump at an early stage of the general election so that he can't grow his base. Clinton is massively outspending him on the air and in network advertising. So far it's working according to the polls, but this could still turn on a dime because Clinton has high negatives in a lot of the polling data, and those polled may not be being truthful to the pollsters either.
He's raised a lot of money in the past few months but has spent very little of it. What he plans to do with the money and what kind of on-air campaign he intends to fight remains to be seen. I doubt it will be standard advertising fare. More likely something unusual that we should look for.
It's interesting that the 1988 Bush/Dukakis campaign was mentioned. That is the only recent one where an effective third term was granted (in this case to Bush to carry on Reagan's legacy). That was a nasty campaign, and Dukakis as 'change candidate' was butchered early (as being weak and insensitive). That playbook is in effect again (this time portraying the 'change candidate' as dangerous and insensitive), but Trump is not Dukakis and his support is more entrenched, so I am not sure if it will work.
I think this will either be a replay of 1979, where Reagan came from behind for a big surprise win after over performing against expectations in that first and only debate, or it will be a replay of 1988, where 'incumbent candidate' Bush took a lead in September and went on for the win because the alternative was seen as untenable - not because Bush was seen as great.
As I mentioned earlier, I think the choice is clear. If it is a close election, that says a lot of sad sorry things about our citizens. This is far from being a replay of any previous elections. Trump is overboard, far overboard.
"Do you trust him with our nuclear arsenal? the nuclear codes?"
There is no successor to Trump. If he messes things up, there will almost certainly be an opportunity to correct the mistakes down the road. Thats how a presidency should work. With Hillary, she is taking the reins of someone brought by banks and special interests, and she will continue that course towards a globalist future. We may as well have given Obama a third term, because its the same god damn thing if he's there or not there.
I'll be casting my vote for Gary Johnson. If he can win just one state (he's surging in Utah, according to recent polls), and the rest of the map falls just right, the election could be thrown to the House of Representatives, at which point I'd love to see those fools have to make that difficult decision. Elect the idiot that is actually their party's nominee, swallow a rather bitter pill and go across the aisle and put Hillary in office, or do something bold and go with a former member of their party in Johnson who most likely has more in common with Republican ideology than Trump does.
I'll say more: Trump is mindless evil incarnate. :D
Nor do we need to fear a Trump presidency. I don't have much faith in people, but I haven't written humanity off that much to think such an event would come to pass. If I thought it was a foregone conclusion, I'd love all hope in people doing anything right. This is the easiest decision that can be made, and yet we have people still confused or conflicted about it. Hillary will be more of the same in the Obama vein, maybe with a bit more military carnage (America's favorite), but still very status quo to how we now know Washington to operate.
With Trump, however-you know what, I'm not even going to entertain the idea. Just wait until the debates come, then see how much of a chance Trump has when he is forced to stop running his mouth about cooky ideas in order to deliver actual policy plans, which will in all likelihood be more cooky ideas. Unless his team can slip him a new brain and filter his big mouth, I'd say it's a done deal at this point in time. Of course his ego is too big to just give up now, especially to a woman of all people, so he'll ride out this failure to the very end.
Use up all that money, Donald, go right ahead. And spread your silver spoon message to your "followers" with that big mouth of yours. After all, you know words. You've got the best words. But not grammar. Not the very best grammar.