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
First Gentleman, I guess.
That label may in fact spark a prominent movement for men equal to that of feminism for women. "What do you mean 'First Man?" Can't we just be men, and not first, second or third something or other, since our entire presidential history is marked with strong masculine figures?" Masculism is an actual term already, I do believe, so this may come to pass.
And then there will be big backlash from radical feminists who will moan that men have no right to complain about labels like that since they've had to deal with them throughout all of time, and blah, blah, blah.
Bad boy....
Hey, I'm just sayin'....that some people are sayin'. It would be a terrible thing, of course...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting
Frightening, just frightening. I'm not laughing.
So here are two new items: The irony ...
and re the hack of DNC emails:
No I haven't forgotten about Gabby Giffords at all. I think I've already established my own horror at The Donald's most recent overstatement. It's just that humor & horror sometimes go hand-in-hand for artistic purposes. My apologies to anyone who takes offense to my moment of ill-considered levity. (See, Donnie? It's really not that hard.)
Oh and click on and scroll down comments on all the tweets I put up. It is an eye opener to the kind of sick bigoted hate-filled scum that live to comment on social media. Not just Gabby's (comments rather restrained there compared to most tweets)
Trump's idea of a sacrifice must be having to choose between either a strip-steak or beluga caviar at dinner time.
You're absolutely right, for with Trump, the US HAS no long run anymore. Within 4 years he'll have destroyed the country. First plunging it in an economic crisis, then sending warheads to North Korea, forgetting China and starting the final world war. The man doesn't understand the whole concept of nuclear deterrence. If you don't understand that, you're mssing out on essential thinking.
You think Obama is part of the MIC, whereas he's been opposing it where he could. It's been protected (since WWII) by the Republicans. If Hillary is going to be more of the same like Obama the world will be a lot safer. The last president to start an invasion, and hence creating ISIS, was G. W. Bush. Remember?
Trump will invade a country if he has a bad hair day. You want him to negotiate with the likes of Putin? Good luck! Putin eats people like Trump for breakfast.
I still can't fathom that Hillary and Obama are now blamed for missteps their Republican predecessors made.
Much like Trump, you just throw stuff against the wall to see what sticks. ( I say the sun will rise in the east, but it could rise in the north, even though it has never done that before.) And like Trump, you say contradictory things constantly and then deny saying it.(My money is on Sanders.) The 3 grade grammar is always laughable. You really are disingenuous.
So as you sit in your pretend apt., looking at your make-believe LSE diploma you really should sit tight. But we all know you can;t resist.
Surely, you have something better to do with your time? Or perhaps not. Who really cares at this point.
Of course. Moral standards only apply to you and me. The State is above such matters.
Morals do not apply here. "Eeets just... beeezness."
Surely, you have something better to do with your time? Or perhaps not. Who really cares at this point.[/quote]
Right on cue. Slow day at Burger Doodle? Nice,
What do you think about my comments @BondJames?
re: the email leaks - I think people know Clinton blew it. Some will forgive her, and others won't. If you didn't like Clinton before, this just reinforces the perceptions. I don't really think that new leaks towards the end of the campaign will change anything because by that time people likely will be completely turned off by the negative stuff. There's already an overload, come to think of it, and we have 3 months still left to go.
The same goes for negative stories about Trump. They won't turn the needle for many voters at this point. The only thing, as I've said before, that can hurt Trump at this point is something he himself says. Not stories about his past. Moreover, he has craftily shifted the focus on the media in the past week, and I think they may have overplayed their hand with the constant negative stories about him since the Convention (at least in terms of how 'undecided voters' view it). Shot their wad a bit early perhaps. After all, he's already been portrayed as a national security risk and a Manchurian Putin advocate. How much worse can it get at this point? An alien?
Views have calcified on both sides and further revelations aren't really going to change things imho.
I do believe that there is a component of the public who aren't being truthful to the pollsters. That probably will benefit Trump, but I'm not sure how 'material' that element is though.
Ultimately, I think this election will be won based on turnout. So the 'enthusiasm' element will be critical. Normally one turns out one's voters by giving them a positive reason to be passionate to vote.
Hardcore Trump supporters are definitely a very passionate group (just like hardcore Berners). He also has the evangelicals from what I see. What he needs to do still is turn around the rank and file conservative Republicans (those who aren't dead set against him). Can he? Well he started on that path with his Economic Speech earlier this week, which has elements of the Ryan plan combined with Trump anti-Trade elements. Will that be enough? I don't know. If some rank and file start to support him later in the campaign (Kasich hasn't 100% ruled it out) then that could help in a swing state like Ohio.
The Democrats have a clear demographic advantage, but with Hillary, I'm just not sure whether the 'enthusiasm' exists. Primarily, I see her campaign as a 'don't vote for Trump, he's too dangerous!' operation combined with 'let's keep going in the current direction'. Will that be enough to produce massive turnout? I'm not sure. Having said that, she doesn't need as much passion and has more margin for error since the demographic advantage could still produce a positive result with mediocre 'left leaning' turnout.
The debates will be critical. The undecided voters (who are the only ones that count from now on) will want to see these candidates in an unfiltered setting without media manipulation, and then they will finally make their minds up. Trump has to pass the 'commander in chief', 'safe change alternative' & 'knowledgeable' tests, and Clinton has to pass the 'likability' and 'trustworthy' tests.
This is a 'change election'. Trump is unquestionably now the 'change candidate'. The media pile-on over the past few weeks has only served to confirm that, as did the 50 foreign policy establishment folks who wrote the open letter & some of the Republicans who've come out against him (Romney, Bush - both yesterday's news and men). In a way, they've done his marketing for him. 'Straight Talk Express' McCain is still a supporter, as is 'Clean Cut Budget Boy' Ryan, and they are more valuable from a marketing standpoint than 50 Bushes or Romneys imho. The only question is whether he is 'acceptable change'.
So the key elements are the debate performances and then the turnout operations and 'voter passion'.
From my understanding, that 'undecided' element is large enough to win this election for one candidate and they may break decisively in one direction post-debate.
Woah! =D>