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
Reminds me again of my favorite bumper sticker from the 70's: Question Authority.
Every time. Locally and federally.
Please take the time to read links to articles that I and others have posted, as well as comments here, over the last couple of pages. There is a lot you can read ... just pick and choose ... and that may lead you to do your own research also.
Thanks. Pax. :)>-
Well, that's three strikes for Obama in my book. He's out.
Trump has chosen an anti-Medicare person (privatization route), a strong conservative. This is of great concern to me, as it will personally affect me.
https://apnews.com/b4b4d5af9dfe4f769816a8df2f1cc5c9/Trump-taps-Price-to-lead-HHS,-plans-2nd-meeting-with-Romney
I wish the Electoral College would do what it was meant to do, but I have little faith it will. Especially since the Texas elector who was quite public about not supporting Trump has resigned rather than vote.
Here is Newt explaining how great it is that Trump distracts the public while doing other things he does not want them to notice. Yep.
http://capitalandmain.com/conversations-on-trumps-america-robert-reich-previews-a-new-era-of-savage-inequality-1129
"There’s much to be done. It’s hard to find any silver linings in this dark storm cloud, but if there is one, it has to do with us being awakened to the emergency we face. Not normalizing what we’re about to experience. Not telling ourselves, “Oh, this is just another president, another administration, maybe more right-wing than before, but we’ve gotten through these kinds of things.” I don’t think that’s the right attitude. I think that there’s nothing normal about what we’re about to experience. We’ve got to be peaceful warriors."
(Dismantling the soapbox now...for the time being.)
(bolding and underlining is mine)
Former Labor Secretary, Robert Reich:
What will happen to economic inequality under Donald Trump?
Robert Reich: It will worsen for a number of reasons. First, Trump and the Republican Congress will pass a huge tax cut for the very wealthy, larger than the Reagan or George W. Bush tax cuts. That would mean large deficits. Those deficits will require, at some point, cuts in public spending.
Second, Trump and [House Speaker] Paul Ryan are already talking about privatizing Medicare and rolling back or eliminating the Affordable Care Act. Trump says he wants to maintain the portion of the Affordable Care Act that requires insurers to provide insurance to people with preexisting conditions, but there’s no requirement that insurers charge an affordable rate to people with preexisting conditions. My fear is that they won’t. On paper, they will be complying with the letter of the law in terms of what Trump says he wants, but, in reality, people with preexisting conditions will pay enormous premiums, giant copayments and deductibles.
Third, I have every reason to believe that the person Donald Trump names to the Supreme Court will be a right-wing conservative who has no interest in reversing Citizens United — in fact, if anything will probably eviscerate what remains of campaign finance limits and may do terrible damage to low-income and poor people through a variety of decisions.
***
Will the white working-class voters who were crucial to Trump’s victory see any real economic benefits from his administration?
No. They may see some initial Keynesian benefit from a big infrastructure project if that’s, in fact, what Trump manages to do, combined with an increase in military spending and a tax cut. That all will stimulate the economy much the same way Ronald Reagan’s military Keynesianism stimulated the economy in the 1980s, but it will be short term.
It won’t change, fundamentally, anything and the white working class, along with the poor and the lower middle class — white, black and Latino — will continue to be on the downward escalator they have been on, but it will be worse.
What do you think a clearly weakened American labor movement can do at this moment to oppose a conservative free-market economic agenda?
I still think it’s a great time for the labor movement, particularly with regard to the large retail chains, hospitals, restaurant chains, hotel chains. A very substantial group of low-paid, mostly women, and significantly black and Latino workers, need a voice. They don’t have to compete with foreign low-wage workers and could really gain ground if they united. This is exactly the right time. I think organized labor might be moved to put some pressure on Congress to make sure that the infrastructure plan that Trump has advised is large enough, respects labor laws, such as Davis-Bacon, really does have the multiplier effect on jobs that it should have. Finally, I think that labor has some new ground to stand on in terms of such things as trade policy where there’s lot of room to shape new consensus around trade that’s not just protectionist but enables working people who lose their jobs for whatever reason to move to a new job that pays as much as the job they lost.
Would you counsel progressives, liberals, Democrats to join with Trump in trying to repeal or alter trade agreements or to pass a major infrastructure spending bill, both of which have been major progressive priorities?
Look, I wouldn’t urge anybody to team up with Trump. I think he’s unreliable and rather awful in every way. But mainstream Republicans are not going to want to do a huge infrastructure spending program. They’re not going to want to modify or reduce the effects of free trade on average working people. If Trump provides an opening, then I’d say let’s use that opening. It doesn’t mean necessarily siding with him, because I honestly don’t believe that Trump stands for anything. I don’t think he is going to take on the Republicans in Congress.
I think when all is said and done, he’s going to do exactly what they want, because he wants to score victory. He doesn’t care about what kind of victories, he just wants to be able to show that he has a lot of wins.
How important is California to the advancement of progressive ideas in this time?
Enormously important. It has huge influence, even if Washington weren’t becoming an occupied city. California really is the largest and most important progressive beacon left in the United States. Washington and Oregon are close, physically and figuratively. My daydreams are the three states getting together and coordinating environmental policy, a minimum wage, labor policy, even perhaps a single-payer healthcare plan. I think that people are going to look to California for leadership in all these areas.
What are the one or two most important things that those concerned with economic inequality, racial inequality and climate change can do right now?
I think it’s more of an attitude than specific actions, because we don’t know what Trump is going to do first, how the Republican Congress is going to behave. But I think the attitude has got to be engaged in a much more active way than most progressives have been up till now. Many people are quite generous with their money, in terms of progressive causes. Some provide some time, but I don’t think there’s any choice any longer.
I think people have to be willing to participate actively in a manner they haven’t been called upon before. I use the phrase “peaceful army of resistance,” and I do think it’s partly that at every level. I think that turning our cities into sanctuary cities and uniting against the kind of brutality we might end up seeing in the coming years with regard to undocumented workers is an important step.
Keeping progressive ideas boiling at least at the state and local level. Getting rid of the electoral college. Eliminating the kind of voter suppression we’ve seen. Being a force for democracy, in a very practical sense.
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/18/11527/citizens-united-decision-and-why-it-matters
In part says: (as usual, bolding and underlining is mine)
The Citizens United ruling, released in January 2010, tossed out the corporate and union ban on making independent expenditures and financing electioneering communications. It gave corporations and unions the green light to spend unlimited sums on ads and other political tools, calling for the election or defeat of individual candidates.
In a nutshell, the high court’s 5-4 decision said that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate.
***
The Supreme Court kept limits on disclosure in place, and super PACs are required to report regularly on who their donors are. The same can’t be said for “social welfare” groups and some other nonprofits, like business leagues.
These groups can function the same way as super PACs, so long as election activity is not their primary activity. But unlike the super PACs, nonprofits do not report who funds them. That’s disturbing to those who favor transparency in elections. An attempt by Congress to pass a law requiring disclosure was blocked by Republican lawmakers.
The Citizens United decision was surprising given the sensitivity regarding corporate and union money being used to influence a federal election. Congress first banned corporations from funding federal campaigns in 1907 with the Tillman Act. In 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act extended the ban to labor unions. But the laws were weak and tough to enforce.
***
It wasn’t until 1971 that Congress got serious and passed the Federal Election Campaign Act, which required the full reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures. It limited spending on media advertisements. But that portion of the law was ruled unconstitutional — and that actually opened the door for the Citizens United decision.
Spending is speech, and is therefore protected by the Constitution — even if the speaker is a corporation.
So far in the 2011-2012 election cycle, super PACs have spent $378 million, while non-disclosing nonprofits have spent $171 million, at times praising, but mostly badmouthing candidates, according to figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
*****************
And a 2015 article:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/21/5-years-later-citizens-united-has-remade-us-politics
In part says:
The result has been a deluge of cash poured into so-called super PACs – particularly single-candidate PACs, or political action committees – which are only nominally independent from the candidates they support. What’s more, the legal protections for corporations mean much of this spending, known as "dark money," never has to be publicly disclosed.
***
Most advocates say the Supreme Court made a good-faith effort to promote transparency and prevent coordination in its Citizens United ruling.
But the contradiction between the court’s stated desire for transparency – eight justices joined the portion of Citizens United that upheld federal disclosure requirements – and its definition of corporations as people protected by the First Amendment created a loophole that campaigns and PACs are all too happy to use to their advantage.
As a result, a small group of wealthy donors has gained even more influence on elections, and are able to maintain that influence once candidates take office.
Of the $1 billion spent in federal elections by super PACs since 2010, nearly 60 percent of the money came from just 195 individuals and their spouses, according to the Brennan Center report. Thanks to Citizens United, supporters can make the maximum $5,200 donation directly to a candidate, then make unlimited contributions to single-candidate super PACs.
Campaign reform advocates say the amount of money spent is not inherently a problem; rather, it's the fact that a tiny number of extraordinarily wealthy individuals are bankrolling the majority of that spending.
"We have folks that are essentially using million-dollar megaphones to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens," says Adam Lioz, a senior adviser at the liberal policy group Demos. "These millionaires are kingmakers in our democracy."
So here is news that many Americans did not want to hear. Moving on to the seemingly trivial topic of having a president that tweets throughout his administration. It seems to be confirmed that Trump will continue to do so. It is all an entertainment focus for Trump; after all, that got him this far. But he uses it for great propaganda purposes of course. He will use it to deflate, distract, push, punish, reward and incite his supporters.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/business/media/if-trump-tweets-it-is-it-news-a-quandary-for-the-news-media.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
In part it says:
There is also a novelty factor. American presidents, aware that their words carry gravity and consequence worldwide, are typically circumspect in their remarks, opting for dry statements and withholding major proposals until a legislative or legal framework is in place. Mr. Trump seems to relish doing the opposite, as he did throughout the election season.
Jack Shafer, who writes about the media for Politico, said that journalists could ultimately best serve the public by being judicious in the way they report on Mr. Trump’s tweets.
“I think that you starve the troll by just pointing out that the troll is lying and the troll is trolling,” Mr. Shafer said. “Don’t ignore him, but hold him accountable when he tweets for effect.”
Some have speculated that come January, Mr. Trump may rely less on Twitter, once he moves into the White House and has the Oval Office and West Wing briefing room at his disposal. But asked about this on Tuesday, Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for Mr. Trump, issued a reply: Don’t bet on it.
“President-elect Trump has amassed an incredible social media following, one he used very effectively throughout the campaign to communicate his message,” Ms. Hicks said in an email. “He intends to continue utilizing this modern form of communication, while taking into account his new role and responsibilities may call for modified usage.”
*********
I agree he needs to be held accountable and called out, especially when he lies. But doing so in the most minimal way, not continuing to spread his own misinformation and lies, will be difficult. It is important people try their best, though.
Clearly, if you are on Wall Street, in banking, or are a large business owner you will have big tax cuts and other benefits. In addition to whatever private wheeling and dealing that will go on with Trump.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-wall-street-bankers-231524
Says in part:
Christmas has arrived early for Wall Street in the early days of the Donald Trump era.
A populist candidate who railed against shady financial interests on the campaign trail is now putting together an administration that looks like an investment banker’s dream.
***
“You would have to go back to the 1920s to see so much Wall Street influence coming to Washington,” said Charles Geisst, a Wall Street historian at Manhattan College. “It’s the most dramatic turnaround one could imagine. That’s the truly astonishing part.”
Evidence of Wall Street’s improved prospects is everywhere.
The Dodd-Frank financial reform law that bedeviled the industry for years and cost banks untold billions could soon get burned to the ground. Bank stocks are soaring. Trump is going around Manhattan promising to lower rich people’s taxes. And industry critics led by Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren — long in ascendance — are seeing their populist power deflate.
The anti-banker culture of Washington has been turned on its head in an instant. And the industry can barely believe its good fortune. “Those of us who have been around D.C. for a long time, are we relieved that we are not going to be subpoenaed every week? Of course we are,” said Richard Hunt, head of the Consumer Bankers Association.
***
Wall Street bankers and their Washington lobbyists are quietly celebrating. They went from expecting fresh crackdowns from a Hillary Clinton administration with Warren wielding heavy influence to the cusp of a deregulatory bonanza with Republicans in complete control of Washington.
“There is a joke going around here that if I’d have known how good Trump was going to be for Wall Street, I’d have campaigned for him,” said one Goldman Sachs executive who declined to be identified by name speaking about the incoming president. “What people are reacting to is this incredible cultural shift. People thought it might be 10 or 15 years until regulators stopped demanding heads and now all of a sudden you can envision it happening overnight.”
***
“If you really want to reduce bank regulation you have to change the nature of the Fed so it really has the desire to start easing off,” said Dick Bove, banking analyst at Rafferty Capital Markets. “And I think it will be pretty easy for Trump to do that. You have two board seats empty and there is a good chance he can push out Yellen and Fischer and that would give him four out of seven, and five if [Daniel] Tarullo becomes isolated and resigns.”
Go look up your dictionary for the very definition of fascism. And try to come up with direct causes for fascism based on historical facts. Because if you continue to say such blatant lies, someone in here has to make you accountable for that nonsense.
But Gustav -- blatant lies are so very 2016! That is to say, "NOT FINE!"
All men created equal-the very reason why the USA was created in the first place. With that principle gone, there is no justification for its existence anymore.