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
Merry Xmas and Happy Holidays, everyone. Cheers! :)
:P
H.L. Mencken
Loopholes for a president. An option.
(one comment under this says: If he were a Bond villian everyone would be saying, "Way over the top".)
And the Big Lies continue, like he's trying to hypnotize us into believing only what he says, ignore the man behind the curtain, facts are overrated, oh yes ...
worth clicking into and looking thru this
Trump's Budget Director -
Says in part:
President-elect Donald Trump recently picked Rep. Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina to head the White House's Office of Management and Budget. Like many of Trump’s other Cabinet nominees, Mulvaney seems to have a disturbingly low opinion of science.
In a stunning September 9 Facebook post (that’s since been deleted but is still cached), Mulvaney asked, “... what might be the best question: do we really need government funded research at all.”
******
As the person who retweeted this says: You are reading this via a series of technologies made possible by government-funded research. Oh, and you don't have small pox.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/12/obama-just-made-it-harder-for-trump-to-create-a-muslim-registry/511505/?utm_source=twb
http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=EE05E7DF173DE367BC4950DFB766838F679EDE
http://politicalbots.org/?p=829
Says in part:
The use of automated accounts was deliberate and strategic throughout the election, most clearly with pro-Trump campaigners and programmers who carefully adjusted the timing of content production during the debates, strategically colonized pro-Clinton hashtags, and then disabled automated activities after election day,” the researchers wrote.
*****
On Wednesday, the white nationalist website the Daily Stormer said it had created over 1,000 fake Twitter accounts that purported to be the personal accounts of black people, and urged its readers to do the same. It alluded to a future trolling campaign. “Twitter is about to learn what happens when you mess with Republicans,” wrote Andrew Anglin on the site.
*****
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/technology/automated-pro-trump-bots-overwhelmed-pro-clinton-messages-researchers-say.html?smid=tw-share
Including the worst you can think of. Such is his reputation.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/donald-trump-congress-republicans-232800
Breitbart seized on Flores' remarks a few days later, calling them proof that House Republicans planned to “isolate and block President Donald Trump’s populist campaign promises.” A conservative populist blogger for the site TruthFeed then warned Flores on Twitter to "get ready for a shit storm," and posted a headline that read: “BREAKING: Rep. Bill Flores Has CRAFTED a PLAN to BLOCK Trump’s Immigration Reform.”
Sean Hannity jumped in, too, featuring the Breitbart post on his syndicated radio show. That only further riled the impromptu anti-Flores mob.
"@RepBillFlores get in @realDonaldTrump way & we will burn your career down until you are reduced to selling life insurance,” tweeted one person. "@RepBillFlores you can go hang yourself!!" another wrote.
It’s little wonder that Capitol Hill Republicans have papered over their not-insignificant policy differences with Trump, shying away from any statement about the president-elect that might possibly be construed as critical. They’re terrified of arousing the ire of their tempestuous new leader — or being labeled a turncoat by his army of followers.
At first it seemed, most did not want to have anything to do with the inauguration but feared they would lose their jobs (especially how their union first worded this to them.)
So far, the Trump team is struggling bigly to get any A or B list celebrities to be part of this inauguration.
I am glad that at least, the union changed its direction and that only Rockettes will truly want to go will be part of this.
Merry Xmas, Rockettes!
I did say "A" or "B" list. ;)
Both sides are playing it. It's odd to see Democrats hopping on board that Russo-phobia. I think both parties have very similar foreign policies but each choose to use different rhetoric.
It's just a really weak defense to blame Russia. Or to suggest you're against countries influencing other countries elections when yourself do the same thing. Usually Obama is good at looking at things calmly and rationally, but this time he's trying to score political points.
Whatever the U.S. has done in the past, and is doing, matters. But that also does not take away from Russia interfering and continuing to influence Trump. How Trump is treating Putin and Russia is of interest and I think genuinely worrying. And keeping in mind that Trump's current actions and words are in conflict with traditional GOP policies and members' views.
:))
Merry Christmas!
This article below is about the cuts the Republicans and Trump are going to try to make happen and push this through as quickly as possible, and for us not to lose focus on Medicaid.
Well, this is personal to me. I'm going to need this in just a few years from now. And of course I'm concerned for everybody who needs this aid, not just me. They will paint the picture so carefully (politics, politicians, sure) , but cut/cut/cut and it is extremely worrying.
In the article below, this bit stands out for me, too. It feels accurate to me in portraying the way Trump operates:
" ...publicly fight a few select or symbolic populist battles in order to mask an overall economic and fiscal strategy that showers benefits on the most well-off at the expense of tens of millions of Americans."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/25/opinion/the-quiet-war-on-medicaid.html?action=click&contentCollection=Music&module=Trending&version=Full®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article
In part: (bolding/underlining is mine)
If Donald J. Trump decides to gut the basic guarantee of Medicare and revamp its structure so that it hurts older and sicker people, Democrats must and will push back hard. But if Democrats focus too much of their attention on Medicare, they may inadvertently assist the quieter war on Medicaid — one that could deny health benefits to millions of children, seniors, working families and people with disabilities.
Of the two battles, the Republican effort to dismantle Medicaid is more certain. Neither Mr. Trump nor Senate Republicans may have the stomach to fully own the political risks of Medicare privatization. But not only have Speaker Paul D. Ryan and Tom Price, Mr. Trump’s choice for secretary of health and human services, made proposals to deeply cut Medicaid through arbitrary block grants or “per capita caps,” during the campaign, Mr. Trump has also proposed block grants.
If Mr. Trump chooses to oppose his party’s Medicare proposals while pushing unprecedented cuts to older people and working families in other vital safety-net programs, it would play into what seems to be an emerging strategy of his: to publicly fight a few select or symbolic populist battles in order to mask an overall economic and fiscal strategy that showers benefits on the most well-off at the expense of tens of millions of Americans.
Without an intense focus by progressives on the widespread benefits of Medicaid and its efficiency, it will be too easy for Mr. Trump to market the false notion that Medicaid is a bloated, wasteful program and that such financing caps are means simply to give states more flexibility while “slowing growth.” Medicaid’s actual spending per beneficiary has, on average, grown about 3 percentage points less each year than it has for those with private health insurance, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities — a long-term trend that is projected to continue. The arbitrary spending caps proposed by Mr. Price and Mr. Ryan would cut Medicaid to the bone, leaving no alternative for states but to impose harsh cuts in benefits and coverage.
Mr. Price’s own proposal, which he presented as the chairman of the House budget committee, would cut Medicaid by about $1 trillion over the next decade. This is on top of the reduction that would result from the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which both Mr. Trump and Republican leaders have championed. Together, full repeal and block granting would cut Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program funding by about $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years — a 40 percent cut.
Even without counting the repeal of the A.C.A. coverage expansion, the Price plan would cut remaining federal Medicaid spending by $169 billion — or one-third — by the 10th year of his proposal, with the reductions growing more severe thereafter. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that a similar Medicaid block grant proposed by Mr. Ryan in 2012 would lead to 14 million to 21 million Americans’ losing their Medicaid coverage by the 10th year, and that is on top of the 13 million who would lose Medicaid or children’s insurance program coverage under an A.C.A. repeal.
The emerging Republican plan to “repeal, delay and replace” the A.C.A. seeks to further camouflage these harmful cuts. Current Republican plans to eliminate the marketplace subsidies and A.C.A. Medicaid expansion in 2019 would create a health care cliff where all of the Medicaid funds and subsidies for the A.C.A. expansion would simply disappear and 30 million people would lose their health care.
In the face of such a manufactured crisis, the Trump administration could cynically claim to be increasing Medicaid funding by offering governors a small fraction of the existing A.C.A. expansion back as part of a block grant. No one should be deceived. Maintaining a small fraction of the current Medicaid expansion within a tightly constrained block grant is not an increase.
Some might whisper that these cuts would be harder to beat back because their impact would fall on those with the least political power. Sweeping cuts to Medicaid would hurt tens of millions of low-income and middle-income families who had a family member with a disability or were in need of nursing home care. About 60 percent of the costs of traditional Medicaid come from providing nursing home care and other types of care for the elderly and those with disabilities.
While Republicans resist characterizations of their block grant or cap proposals as tearing away health benefits from children, older people in nursing homes or middle-class families heroically coping with children with serious disabilities, the tyranny of the math does not allow for any other conclusion. If one tried to cut off all 30 million poor kids now enrolled in Medicaid, it would save 19 percent of the program’s spending. Among the Medicaid programs at greatest risk would be those optional state programs that seek to help middle-income families who become “medically needy” because of the costs of having a child with a serious disability like autism or Down syndrome.
*******
With many Republican governors and local hospitals also likely to be victimized by the proposals of Mr. Ryan and Mr. Price, this fight can be both morally right and politically powerful. Republicans hold only a slight majority in the Senate. It would take only three Republican senators thinking twice about the wisdom of block grants and per capita caps to put a halt to the coming war on Medicaid.