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
Yes we have laws about slander/libel, @CommanderRoss. I am not an expert on them by any means, though.
Yes, but it's become next to impossible these days to prove libel or slander. And high profile cases just don't hold public interest.
There was this one, that faded away after settlement out of court:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/sherrod-breitbart-lawsuit-settle
Clinton and the leaked emails:
And on Trump not being able to follow advice of family & inner circle of supporters, those on his team:
Well that's pretty bad, slander legislation is one very important way to prevent discussions to go off track into unbased mudslinging.
Another way to prevent influence of th rich is limit the amount people and companies may donate to a party or political person. It's tried and tested.
Two small steps, but it would make a huge difference in the political debate.
But if I were.. I would vote for Trump because he is at least serious about tackling illegal immigration. A country has to control it's borders, otherwise it ceases to be a country. Yeah a lot of Trump supporters are mindless, guess what so are a lot of Hilary supporters. Voting for her simply because she is a women and wouldn't it be nice to have first female president. Never mind about Benghazi.
I think your 'turning the tables' paragraph is spurious. All the things you mentioned are not crimes. Being gay or having ancestors who did bad things are not even reprehensible. Entering and remaining in a country illegally is and needs to dealt with. Saint Hilary would probably give everyone an amnesty (encouraging more to enter) because that's the easy and of course humanitarian solution.
"I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally."/
The original bill would have been a sweeping and tough law if passed as it was written. But the Republicans knuckled under to pressure from the Chamber of Congress and Big Business who objected to stiff penalties for any business hiring an undocumented worker. After all who would cut lawns, work in dry cleaners, sling hash, empty toilets, raise our children and pick up our trash if we can;t exploit them and pay less than minimum wage. So the bill was changed and eventually passed. Republicans cheered Reagan.
Enter Barack Obama who has proposed similar legislation and Republicans have their hair on fire. The number of undocumented workers crossing the Mexican border is down to a trickle.
Exactly. It would be one thing if Trump were taking any of this seriously, as an actual debate on the issue of illegal immigration is something the US should actually be having. Instead, we're getting nothing but demagoguery from him.
You also have to wonder about a man running for president who basically offers the job to someone else in the event that he wins the office. How serious is Trump about actually wanting to govern when he offers John Kasich the VP slot in addition to control of both foreign and domestic policy. As Kasich's advisor asked Don Jr. when that offer was made, "What exactly would Donald be doing, then?".
You're right, support for mass unskilled migration is an unholy alliance between big business and socialist cultural Marxists.
Try again:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/16/trump_mexico_not_sending_us_their_best_criminals_drug_dealers_and_rapists_are_crossing_border.html
he clearly states, check the video, he says it himself: 'they're sending people with problems, they bring in drugs, they bring crime, they're rapists'.
I hate to get personal but I just want to know, have you actually been to school? It may sound like an insult but it is a serious question, because then I can understand at hat level we're discussing here. Do you know what communism, socialism or Marxism entail? This combination you mention in itself is an absolute impossibility.
The funny thing is, he actually claims Mexico is doing better economically then the US. He's just jealous. But if that were true, why would all those Mexicans come to the US/ It makes (again) no sense. Since when do criminals want to rob from the poor and stay away from the rich?
Walls don't keep "things" out. They keep people out... as long as they can be built, as long as long as the person building them can afford them, as long as they cover entirely the border of the area you want to keep out of reach for imaginary monst... errr, I mean, people. Fact of the matter is, illegal immigrants can come from outside the Mexico-US border... And your wall is not even built yet. It is not even paid yet. Actually, it is not budgeted yet. Not that Trump seems to care much about it, because apparently Mexico will pay for it. Assuming he is president, when is he going to start building it? After or before Mexico sends him the first paycheck for it? Assuming they'll happily pay for it. Or even unhappily. Once it is built, and the border running... How efficient will it be against illegal immigrants? And actually, is this wall a viable solution for the problem of illegal immigration? But hey, who cares, right? At least he offers a solution. A simple, some of his detractors would say simplistic, solution. Never mind that it is an unrealistic one, maybe even an pure fantasy, at least he's offering a solution. And like any fascist leader before him (because this is what he is), Trump offers only his own willpower as a guarantee of success.
I have been to school. That's quite a childish insult but I don't mind.
It's difficult to condense a description of these people into a few labels, so I will try to elaborate. These people are left wing economically, they believe in large government (though they usually are deeply mistrustful of security services 'because wayist'). Hence my description 'socialist'.
They also hate the concept of white American identity and see immigration as a way of rendering their opponents arguments futile. Maybe cultural Marxist isn't a good term. It isn't perfect but it gives an idea of what I mean. Even I haven't got to the bottom of these people's worldview, and of course this description is an oversimplification. But there is a group who despise border controls as a matter of principle. They want a world with no borders.
Some understand the gist of what he is saying, and others do not. If he hadn't brought up the wall, the illegal immigration 'issue' would not have been brought to the fore. If he hadn't brought up the 'temporary ban', the issue of immigration, refugees and 'security' as a result would not have been brought to the fore. If he hadn't brought up the trade deals, the issue of how such deals 'have impacted the manufacturing industry' in the US would not have been brought to the fore (Bernie did it too, but Trump has been on about this since the 80's). If he hadn't brought up 'Nato', the issue of the 'organization's relevance and cost' (which has been discussed in foreign policy and national security circles for some time) wouldn't have been brought to the fore. These are issues that a portion of the American public care about.
The solutions have to come via detailed discussions and prescriptions via Congress, but at least the issues for discussion have been identified. Some portion of the public appreciate that, because they are controversial issues that are not generally discussed or even identified. Others don't. There's no convincing those on either side. Their minds are made up, as are those of nearly everyone on this thread, as can be seen by the rhetoric here. There's a sliver in the middle who are the target.
--
I would like to see a more detailed discussion of the issues and prescriptions in the media. As we've mentioned on here before, they won't do it though, because their game is ratings and sensationalism. As an example, both candidates laid out their high level economic plans this past week, and the level of discussion on those matters in comparison to rubbish around emails and 2nd amendments and what not is staggering.
It will be up to serious voters to do their homework on the issues and prescriptions by going to the candidate's websites and then making up their minds.
That sounds entirely, um, Trump.
Not to mention unrealistic, not to mention pointless because tunnels can be dug underneath the stupid thing. The wall was never intended to be real, its entire intent is symbolic. It "proves" that Trump is "serious" when he says he's going to "fix the problem" with our borders. The only people who believe that he's literally going to build a wall that will magically solve the border issue -- and that Mexico will pay for the blasted thing -- are idiots.
As a old (over 60 years of age) white American male (working and living happily in the capitalist system all my life, no Marxist me) I have no idea what in the world you're talking about. What EXACTLY is the "concept of white American identity" ? --and let me warn you in advance it sounds pretty damned racist to me.
Bringing stuff to the forefront is one thing. Coming up with valid and credible solutions is another thing. Hell, it's the next best thing. And so far Trump failed with this next step. You know, I'm really getting tired of guys like Trump. The only stuff they do is ratling up their supporters. And WITH help of the media.
So I'm very sorry. I don't buy Trump's criticism about the media anymore, if on ONE hand Trump needs the media to do very well during the primaries, uses the media as a branch of his own campaign, and on the OTHER hand completely destroys the media in a Putin-esque way when he starts loosing during the actual post-convention presidential campaign.
Today he said this on Twitter:
Beg your pardon?!?! It is you Mr Trump who was constantly winning the media coverage. All you had to do was acting more presidential, more restrained, more focused, more disciplined and more content-rich. And despite the fact you did one huge economics talk in Detroit, you are responsible for your own gaffes shortly before and after that tiny bit of content you uttered!
You know @BondJames, I do think talking about the contents, the issues, and solutions need to start at small levels. In places like here. That's what democracy for me is all about. And if you turn a few pages on this topic, you know I was here to actually start a discussion about the issues, about which candidate suits your political views best. I actually went in detail about policies, issues and ideas!
But in all honesty, I had to drag your views on this matter out of you. And only very recently you started talking about your life as a man who works both in Canada and the USA (if I'm not mistaken). And I tried to ask you what you actually prefer for that matter. But all I get from you is vague stuff. You don't even go into specifics about Trump's last speech about economics in Detroit!
So you need to empower yourself first in here, and talk about the issues yourself, before you start blatantly blame the media, albeit with more 'civilized wordings' as opposed to Trump's tweets. But in all honesty, I can only read one big support from your side for Trump's tweet up here. Nothing else.
I'm really quite tired of this. Moreover, the 'media' is much more than just an 'evil power'. It consists of televized media and written media, newspapers and news stations. And if you dig a bit, there;s plentiful stuff to read about the issues. But if you start writing them off as one big corrupt anti-Trump force, you are primarily responsible for bringing down both Trump and the media.
If Trump looses, then he did that to himself. Plain and simple. He could have changed the narrative himself be staying clear of all these gaffes and racial, criminal and violent inuendo. And inuendo it is! And for me inuendo like that is way more dangerous than saying in clear words that 'Hillary should be shot!'. But you keep sweeping it away with mild words. I think it's wrong and dangerous.
And it's here where Trump is destroying himself, and with it the whole system. For me establishment people did a lot of things wrong, but all I can see is that outsiders and populists like Trump only enhance and speed up the total breakdown of society! Sadly, populists like Trump don't give a shit about that. They lack self-criticism, but they thrive on narcism. They cannot say 'Sorry' as an outsider, but instead blame everyhting and everyone else. Hell, he's already securing his Trump holdings by blaming Clinton, the media, and many other 'evil forces' except himself for that loss. It's dangerous, reckless and IMO way more damaging than Hillary Clinton's soft lies about her email server.
To end this post, I have a few questions for you @BondJames: Do you think Trump is fit to become the next president of the United States? Or do you only care for populists bringing up people's worries to the foreground....without any real solutions or four-year term prospects?
I believe Trump has raised some important issues that have been bubbling under the surface of the American psyche. He is channeling what he hears out there. He has tapped into something, as did Bernie Sanders.
You have essentially dismissed that in your lengthy post. The same goes for the national media. That is a big mistake.
Have you considered that Trump may not care if he wins or loses? As he said, he has a good life to go back to if he does lose. I have no idea whether he is in this to win or not, as I mentioned a few weeks ago. He doesn't even have a proper ground operation in the battle ground states yet, which should tell you something. He doesn't have a data analytics operation either.
The issues that he has captured and messaged are not going away however, just like the issues that Sanders raised are not going away. These are Tea Party and Occupy issues respectively.
The debate should be had about those issues, responsibly and intelligently. That is how politics should work. Instead, we are reduced to gossip, ad hominems and character analysis 24/7 despite having more media networks covering this campaign than ever before.
If Clinton wins (which is increasingly likely based on the polls) then she will have a very difficult time governing as a result of this campaign, because the people who were motivated by both Sanders and Trump will not have a voice, and will feel like their interests were not addressed during the campaign.
As I said a while back, the tension in the populace is real, and their grievances are real. It must be let out of the system. If it isn't then it will explode next time out or perhaps even before that, and that explosion will really reshape American politics.
What I care about this is irrelevant. I am not important here, so directing your fears and anger at me is not worthwhile.
Here you go again :-). Time and time again. It IS relevant what YOU think in here. For me democracy starts from the bottom up.....and you give way too much trust in candidates for the presidency. You keep ignoring the sheer fact of self-empowerement. You want a candidate that brings up the worries that live in rural societies.
Al fine, but Trump actually held a rather extensive speech on issues in Detroit, about how he wants to improve the American economy. You keep ignoring that. You keep ignoring his speech about basically a huge tax break for the rich. How does THAT correspond with all the worries of working-class people? It does NOT correspond with that. And you keep ignoring that.
You simply utter a lot of mild, nuanced 'blabla', you keep beating around the bush yourself. You keep saying "the tension in the populace is real", but you keep ignoring the issues yourself.
Again, what YOU care about is relevant. Is RELEVANT.
The difference between you and I is I didn't attack you for that. I just observed, with a smile.
Anyway, I'm not going to get into it with you. It's really pointless. As I said earlier, I believe 100% of this thread has their minds made up already, and has done since the very start of this thread.
I'm sorry to say this, but you behave like Donald Trump now. Albeit a more verbally gifted one.