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
The loss of jobs to other countries can and should be managed also. It can be managed by incentives for business. Competitors are managing their markets to benefit their economies, and they are doing better than the US is at present. They are using trade, investment and exchange rate policy to grow jobs at home.
I'm business focused, but I believe in managed trade. In that respect I am not a libertarian. As an example, I currently do favour a tax of sorts on US companies who export jobs overseas, but only if they want to import their goods made overseas back into the US (such tax must be equal to what foreign companies are charged). I am also in favour of incentives to encourage them to keep jobs in the US. Sort of a carrots and sticks approach.:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38216632
Everything taught in school, every economic belief is out the window now. Globalization like this is much like climate change; this isn't your Father's reality. There ARE no past models to base solutions on.
Gene Roddenberry defined it in science fiction; Bruce Lee defined it in personal combat- leave tradition behind and find a new mix that works, or accept loss and defeat.
My guess: The next major crisis could be in the currency market, or it could be some banking failure in China or elsewhere unexpected. That's when we'll have to confront a new reality head on. Like those disaster or alien movies that force countries to work together finally (Armageddon etc.)
I really wish someone recorded Bill Clintons private conversations over the past 40 years that he has been married to Hillary.. He's actually raped women and cheated on his wife..
Trump made a sexual comment in private 11 years ago. Get over it..
I keep hearing the media say the same thing over and over again. Talk show hosts too! It's getting so annoying...
I find it so funny the liberal media made a big deal about trump not accepting the results now look at them!!!
All I am going to say is let the man take office and see what he does..
He isn't even the president yet, obama is still president. Right now I am surprised obama isn't getting a lot of attention for his lack of stepping up for the black community. Deaths in Chicago, the riots and police deaths.
He's a black president, he really needs to step up and say hey the laws the law, come together and respect the law.
I literally cannot watch the news anymore so biased..
=))
Sorry, you DID use a small "t" once on Trump, so maybe it's just your typing skillz.... or lack thereof.
BTW, I've been pretty critical of the O-man my own self.
Also, "LIBERAL" media????
I'm also with you on the pre-judging. Mr. Trump has already proven to be quite effective and he's not even in office yet. I'm expecting great things on the economy, especially if he can get the promised tax reforms passed, reduce the corporate tax rate to 15%, initiate the planned infrastructure program, and get corporate money currently sitting abroad repatriated and invested in the US. The financial markets appear to feel the same way too, and have hit new highs since his election. Ken Rogoff, a Harvard Professor and Economist who was initially critical seems to be coming around as well.
http://www.barrons.com/articles/a-leading-economist-warms-to-trumponomics-1481197807
“I am certainly not saying that repealing Obama-era regulation will improve the average American’s wellbeing,” writes Rogoff. “Far from it. But businesses will be ecstatic, maybe enough to start really investing again. The boost to confidence is already palpable.” "Trumped-up or not, tax cuts can be very good for business confidence.”
In contrast, Paul Krugman, NYT columnist and Nobel Prize winning economist, has egg on his face, as he earlier predicted a stock market crash if Mr. Trump won the presidency.
Lloyd Blankfein, the head of Goldman Sachs, also seems to be positive these days, despite being a supporter of Hillary Clinton during the campaign.
https://global.handelsblatt.com/breaking/goldmans-blankfein-trump-not-a-dangerous-president
“He’s a very smart guy, a businessman…I am not pessimistic at all because he won....Mr. Trump may turn out to be a much better president than anyone else might have been in that place..... He’s just less of a known quantity as a politician.”
In other news, President Elect Trump & daughter Ivanka Trump met with actor and environmentalist Leonardo DiCaprio. This follows a similar meeting with known climate change advocate and former presidential candidate Al Gore last week.
http://fortune.com/2016/12/08/leonardo-dicaprio-trump-tower/
“Our conversation focused on how to create millions of secure, American jobs in the construction and operation of commercial and residential clean, renewable energy generation.”, a member of Mr. DiCaprio's team said.
Mr. DiCaprio made a documentary entitled Before the Flood focusing on climate change and wildlife preservation. Ivanka Trump has identified Climate Change as an issue of interest to her, and wants to use her role as First Daughter to promote solutions to it. I can see Mr. DiCaprio making some headway if he can tie the proposals to jobs, as that is likely to get President Elect Trump's attention. Make it about jobs and he will probably listen. Critics however have asserted that Mr. Trump is not serious about climate change, especially given his recent appointment of Scott Pruit, the Attorney General of Oklahoma and climate change skeptic, as the next Head of the Environmental Protection Agency.
"Pruitt's appointment reveals Trump's climate flip-flopping and meetings with Gore as nothing more than a smokescreen," May Boeve, executive director of the group 350.org, said in a statement.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-climate-change-epa-scott-pruitt-2016-12
There was further noise from both the Right and the Left yesterday on President Elect Trump's appointment of Mr. Andy Puzder, CEO of CKE Restaurants Holdings Inc. which owns Carl’s Jr and Hardee’s burger chains, as his Labour Secretary. Mr. Puzder opposes increases to the minimum wage which riles the Left, and is also known for hiring foreign labour in his restaurants, which riles the Right.
"We've reached the point where overregulation is doing meaningful damage to our businesses," he said last month at the Restaurant Finance & Development Conference in Las Vegas, citing high labour costs, increased health care costs and "political and social" policies as hindrances.
http://www.timescolonist.com/trump-picks-fast-food-executive-andrew-puzder-for-labour-1.4071686
Here's a nice article by the way. Perhaps it is the 'show' element of Trump that has a mildly positive effect. Because in the end, at the start of their first terms, both Trump and Obama were very similar in their policies, applying (left vs. right-wing) populist visions.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-obama-political-blueprint-232292
I wouldn t be surprised if Wall Street is behind the next administration, either.
The Rude Pundit has returned, after a self-imposed time-out, and is pulling no punches. The gist of his argument is that Trump is actually going to be the LOSER-in-Chief, having lost to Hillary by nearly 3 million votes. Here's some of His Rudeness' own prose: Trump won because the Founders created a f***ed-up system to make slave states feel wanted because conservatives have always thrown a fit if you don't just accept their ignorance. And if you want to see more, just because, y'know, it's important that we all hear each other even if we don't necessarily agree, you can find him at http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/
Meanwhile, in other news, Obama is finally getting off his behind and ordering an investigation of Russian meddling in this election because, oh I don't know, maybe they've got The Donald by the wallet and maybe it would be a bad idea to have the American Resident under the thumb of a foreign power. Just sayin'. And the recount in certain states that statisticians think maybe look a little fishy is moving forward. And the campaign to get electors to behave faithlessly to one segment of the populace but faithfully to the founding fathers' intent in creating an electoral college in the first place also moves forward.
The Donald's drive to put the foxes in charge of the henhouse ain't a done deal yet, folks. Looks like interesting times ahead. Merry Christmas, y'all. 'Preciatecha!
“I’ve now gotten to know President Obama. I really like him,... We have, I think I can say, at least for myself, I can’t speak for him, but we have a really good chemistry together. We talk.... He loves the country. He wants to do right by the country and for the country, and I will tell you, we obviously very much disagree on certain policies and certain things but, you know, I really like him as a president.”
That is an interesting article that you posted, and yes, President Elect Trump's more interventionist approach on a few matters is strikingly similar to President Obama's. The difference will be in the execution & emphasis, because the opposite side holds the power. So there will be less emphasis on liberal social values. However, what both share is a desire to help the American worker. Mr. Obama brought more jobs, but his growth rate was anemic. Mr. Trump will look to boost that significantly with supply side policies. Let's see what the impact is.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-obama-once-hurled-insults-now-trade-p
My dad mentioned that to me a couple of weeks back, but I didn't follow up on it. I found this article on it below (this is most likely a PropOrNot targeted website):
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/10/15/wiki-o15.html
With the Trump Administration, it's probably Goldman Sachs that's calling the shots. Treasury Secretary pick Steve Mnnuchin is an alum, as is Steve Bannon. Today it was announced that Goldman's president and chief operating officer Gary Cohn has been offered the directorship of the National Economic Council and assistant to the president for economic policy
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-cohn-idUSKBN13Y1YD
" Let me clear my throat. When I first put myself in a self-imposed time out, one of the reasons was that I was really fucking pissed at myself for getting the presidential election so wrong, for thinking that it was a no-brainer that Hillary Clinton would be elected, that the country wasn't so stupid and deluded and hateful that it would elect a fuzzy, bulbous fungus in human form instead. So, yeah, I beat the shit out of myself for that, something I think that lots of real so-called pundits should have done and didn't. If you're so fucking wrong, you own that. You deal with it. You wrestle with that shit."
He should have perhaps stayed gone and left while he was behind rather than complain now about the rules of the game after the game has been soundly won. There's no doubt that California is quite left wing and contributed a large portion of the extra votes for Hillary. Well, California does not reflect the whole of America. I heard succession plans are being considered. I think it's ill advised, but if that's the way they want to play it, along with being a sanctuary state, more power to them.
From all the complaining and whining I've heard all over the place since Robby Mook first cried about it in July, not least from the Washington Post, I would have thought that it was a certainty that Russia had meddled in the election. Are we now saying that they are only going to conduct a proper investigation on it now?
Moron-pundit simply translates to sore loser. Yawn.
He's not apologizing for predicting the election wrong. He never had any better idea than anyone else, as to who was going to win.
He was only exercising standard liberal blowhard bully tactics. ie tell everyone the things in the bag, in order to shame anyone who dares to predict otherwise.
Those who don't share dickhead-pundit's blatherings, not that I actually read such bitchy liberal drivel, beyond what @bondjames copied, are of course gasp "hateful".
Blubber blubber. "Stupid" and "deluded" too. What an asshole, and I mean that in the kindest, nicest, gentlest way of course. The obnoxious liberal stereotype taken to new heights or lows? Who knows. Who effen cares.
Back in the real world, Obama and Trumpster seem to be having a good yuk.
Great photo. Maybe Trumpy will entertain former President to a round of golf.
Obama will have to give strokes though. I'm sure he's a much lower handicap than older and non-athletic looking President-elect, but they both do love golf.
If I were Trump, I'd take Obama for a round at Doral. A gesture of good will.
Might pick up some pointers, not only President stuff, but I'm sure Obama has a nice swing. In fact, I know he does. It's real smooth.
btw I really do respect Obama's golf game. I play the game myself. Getting the swing to a Connery-in-Goldfinger level or to the smoothness that President below demonstrates, takes a lot of discipline and hard work. I struggle to break 95, no matter how much I play.
Its real hard to maintain consistency over 18 holes.
Well, it would've been hard to investigate it before the election had actually occurred...but yes, I agree it would have been nice to have gotten the investigation started sometime in mid-November. Still, better late than never!
Let me see if I've got this right: you haven't read what he has to say, but you know exactly what's wrong with it. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Nice to know some things never change. Merry Christmas to you too, Tim-boo-ba.
Get the old paper ballot system back, or stop complaining. I think someone just shot their own foot.
I defer to @bondjames efforts to expose the "best" bits.
He's the most industrious scribbler-researcher in Bondom.
Merry Inauguration Day! :P
We are totally in agreement. I like paper ballots. Here in CA we use paper ballots. I'd love to have the likes of PA use paper ballots.
I think you're reducing his argument to a size that's easier for you to debate. His main point --and actually, I think it carries some merit -- is that under the electoral college, a county with 1000 voters has exactly the same weight as a county with 100,000 voters, and that this significantly disenfranchises 99,0000 voters. No, California does not reflect the whole of America, but neither does Montana. Are you trying to argue that a voter from Montana should carry more weight than one from California? We're talking a LOSS BY TRUMP of nearly 3 MILLION votes. Surely that should give one reason to consider Trump less than an overwhelming victor in this contest.
I note that you don't bother to refute this point. Trump's plan is to put the billionaires in charge of making the American economy responsive to the needs of the common man, because obviously they haven't had enough power yet in this country. And oh yes, let's put the climate change deniers in charge of the EPA because they obviously have the best ideas about keeping the environment safe for future generations. And so on. As I say, interesting times ahead and let's see how things look after January 19th. I assure you, I'll be hard at work until then....and probably long after. See you in the trenches!
;)
I swear... Do people really not understand that you cannot just go in and vote for the presidential candidate?
What's funny is that if Trump had lost we would all hear the typical democrat/liberal say grow up she won fair and square. They need to let it go republicans won everything by a major major landslide it wasn't even close and yes the republicans elected Trump and yes I was smart enough to vote for the people who elected Trump.
Trump is allegedly a 3 handicap and Obama is a 13.....
1. You have proof he raped women? Otherwise, it's just a baseless accusation.*
2. Democrats are accepting the results. The point of the recounts, which is a legal right by the way, is to force states to investigate their own systems.
3. What is it that you would like Obama to do? The President doesn't write legislation, and the federal government has no jurisdiction of local law enforcement. This is a Chicago problem.
4. He HAS stepped up and told people to follow the law of the land: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/08/politics/obama-dallas-police-shootings/
5. Apparently, based on this post, you don't watch ANY news..or read any, either.
*According to Trump insiders, facts don't matter anymore. So where does that leave us as a society? Fox Mulder once said that "Perception is reality." And so is the case.
Yep. And it's because our system of government is not representative of the population that resides with in it.
1. Population of California is more than Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas combined.
2. California has TWO senators. Those other states combined have 10.
3. Number of major employers that have set up shop in those 10 states: Maybe two?
4. Number of major employers that have set up shop in California? Countless.
I would say that this constitutes the problem. You can scream "we own Congress" to the rooftops, but the reason for that is simple: our government's system allows for a serious OVER-representation from the rural parts of our country.
Or so I hear. Personally I avoid it, but for shoveling the damn driveway.
Whine, whine. The economy is not about being responsive to the "common man" whoever that might be. I do hope I am not being "hateful"....
Its about being responsive to every man. And there is no magic formula.
I would humbly suggest, a good start is to keep bloated wasteful government at all levels from sucking any more money out of the economy than is absolutely needed.
Decentralize, deregulate. Promote states rights. Aim for market driven efficiency. That should be one's starting point.
If you prefer a more centralized, big government, command approach to the economy. That's your call. If you are all about the so-called "fair" society, which IMO does not exist, given human nature, again your call. Free world.
But I will stick to my preference for building a free and prosperous society. Emphasis on free- the prosperity follows and maybe some "fairness" too. Who knows.
It is though utter hubris to imagine that the world will dutifully fall into line with one's own brilliance and elevated enlightenment.
So instead, we trudge to the polls, respect our democratic institutions and election results, and try to maintain a civilized society.
You will get your chance, I'd say in maybe 8 years, possibly 12, but not longer.
The parties do tend to take turns governing, even if the Bush-Clinton axis seems to have had a good 36 year run, but that's another discussion, maybe best moderated by @germanlady
But from where I sit in the great white north, with liberals no longer wasting space in the White House, economic action will be that much less agenda-driven and more market driven.
Deal with it. The people have spoken. And yes they have spoken. The electoral college results exceeded even the Trumpster's modest expectations
306 electoral college votes to 232. That is a winning margin of 74 in favour of the "Make America Great Again" side" Only 270 votes being actually needed.
If you think the popular vote 65,432,202 to 62,793,872, suddenly negates the hard work and strategizing employed by both sides, I guess you don't respect the rules of the game.
As I explained at length in a dissertation on another thread, and as others have diligently pointed out, the name of the game is to WIN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, not win the anecdotal statistical data point known as the popular vote.
The good pundits and analysts at CNN, on election night, took pains to explain the various and sundry electoral college strategies. Riveting stuff, if actual election strategy is of interest. The numbers they focused on were those that were driving the electoral college.
If the election had been a national plebiscite (and what constitutional democracy actually does that?) then the election strategies clearly would have been radically different.
If fact I would suggest both parties might have had near identical platforms. You'd have to try and be all things to all people for fear of losing a single vote.
The two nominated candidates could very well also have been different, considering the respective party conventions, would have taken into consideration the national plebiscite nature of the contest.
Lets be cynical too. Both above-board AND below-board strategies would have been radically different, and we know both parties are not above below-board).
Not being a liberal blowhard like the rhubarb-pundit, I can't actually say with certainty (whilst browbeating into submission, anyone "hateful" enough to disagree with imaginary predicted results I might bellow forth) what the actual results, ahead of time might have been.
But I can say the final popular vote would have been different. But again, the campaigns and possibly (even likely) the candidates, would have been different.
The popular vote does not matter a whit. No more than it does here in Canada when parties routinely form governments with barely 40% of the popular vote.
The strategy here is to win seats. Resources are poured into contesting the most winnable seats, not popular vote.
If you want to campaign to change the rules of the game, go for it. Dig those trenches.
In fact liberals up here are attempting to do just that, led by fearless Castro-loving brat Prince PM.
But if you examine their "electoral reform"motivation, its clear they are not endevouring to create a more representative system, but rather, one that they think, might strategically elect more liberals.
Devious creatures. C'est la vie.
We endure.
:-O So I've got this wrong?! Obama a 13.
That I can believe. That means he averages about 84 per round, which is damn good for a non-pro.
I looked it up.. there are plenty of articles
Obama reveals golf handicap ahead of 300th round as president
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/07/politics/obama-golf-interview/
and btw, I don't care how much golf he played as President. One can conduct business on the golf course. He's entitled to his leisure pursuits, and golf can be addictive if you have the means.
But Trump a 3 handicap!? The lying bastard. I don't believe that for a second.
He must cheat like Goldfinger. Whose his caddy, Oddjob?
I am now investigating this.
Stay tuned.
This Guardian story I think answers the question. Its really no mystery. He cheats.
===
There are many tales of Trump bending the rules on the golf course. Last year, former Sports Illustrated managing editor Mark Mulvoy told the Washington Post that once playing with Trump in the 1990s he realized that Trump had placed a ball just feet from the pin that he had never hit. “Ahh, the guys I play with cheat all the time,” Mulvoy said Trump told him. “I have to cheat to keep up with them.”
‘Donald Trump had no idea what the Rumbelows Cup was. We didn’t explain’
Read more
The same story referenced an interview Alice Cooper did in 2012 in which the rock star – a regular golfer – answered a question about the worst golf cheat he had ever played with by saying: “I played with Donald Trump one time, that’s all I’m going to say.”
Trump wouldn’t be the first politician to massage the truth of his athletic prowess. Bill Clinton’s propensity for taking mulligans, golfing parlance for do-overs, which are not strictly permitted under the rules, is well documented.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/oct/27/donald-trump-golf-handicap-3-unlikely-course
If you take enough shots over, especially putts, one can whittle one's scores down. Its easy to lose count too, if you're getting up into 5 or 6 strokes range.
So Trump is a bullshit 3-handicap.
I think even Goldfinger would be embarassed to play with him.