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
Has there been a bit of a sign of that then? That some of his supporters are turning? It's hard to keep across it all! :)
It really is. It certainly seems more prevalent post-inauguration.
Lovely, coming from the offspring of a filthy creep who harvey-weinsteined his way through scores of young women.
Not that that was ever an issue for those baaahble people who were praying at Trump's altar. Makes me wonder--since when does the Bible endorse racism, bigotry, sex out of wedlock, violence, murder by neglecting those in need, ...?
Oh, wait...
That's good to hear, fingers crossed that keeps going.
Of course Trump's trial puts him on the news again which is a shame, but it's got to be done.
What a disgusting man Mini Dornie is.
What do you mean 'under the surface'? You want to know how racist America really is? Just check the news on any murder case. Remember the one where a police officer thought seh got home, saw someone in the dark in 'her' apartment and shot the guy? It said in the news 'white police officer shoots black boy in his home' and then 'no racist motivation has been given'. So what's the relevance of their skin colour? First they imply, and then they take their hands off.
I understand all you people here partying for the departure of the orange buffoon, and beeing amazed by his followers, but you seem to forget your sources are likely as biased as theirs. If you read conservative media on a daily basis, you'd start to understand why they 'still believe'. As you yourself still 'believe' in your own correctness. But progressive media twist and turn and mislead as much as the conservatives do. How can it be in a country that's supposed to be free, you can claim anything without reporcussions? Why isn't anyone sued for slander?
And obviously social media add to this cocktail. So before you start partying, start thinking of how to get honesty back into politics and journalism. Or Biden's challenger might be even worse than the one that just left office.
Bikini, throwing her to the ground and handcuffing her. His reason was he was
frightened she had a Concealed weapon ! .... She was a tiny 14 yr old ( I think )
in a small bikini, My question ( Like Scaramanga ) would be where on earth would
she be hiding it.
Personally I think it's a lack of training in some police officers, the gun is
not the answer to any and all problems.
Something must be wrong, not only with U,S, gun laws (or the lack thereof) which I 'd understand to cause police to act a little bit excessively, but also with police training which over here in Europe is definitely designed to teach officers NOT to kill offenders, whereas in the U.S. its purpose seems to be teaching them to "shoot to kill".
Wow. I know it's always existed. Slavery's never ended. I'm just stating the obvious, that it's come out into broad daylight and celebrated in the streets moreso in the last four years than it had been before.
Take a load off pal:
hahaha you're reading it the wrong way. All I do is assess the situation. You can read it full of emotion, but that's not what I meant, I mean every line factual. I see too many people thinking it's all over, but as long as the broken system in the USA is not meant, as long as people are not held accountable for their words, the next Donald is going to be worse. Democrats should show restrained in their political bias, and start mending the system before it's too late. Polarisation always ends in violence. By definition.
Because it's free..? What do you mean?
To be fair, the cops in the Capitol have spoken about how they knew that to open fire on the invaders would be incredibly dangerous as they would never be able to stop them all and just enrage the ones remaining and put themselves in even more danger.
Same thing with those school shootings they have so often: the idea is that everyone is armed so they can heroically fight back against the nutcases, but in practise when people do happen to be armed in those scenarios they know that they're likely to be mistakenly shot on sight by the police if they get their guns out, so they don't. Guns don't make anything better and at least there are some people who understand that.
I cannot get my head around those colossal twats we see protesting who are wearing enormous automatic rifles strapped to their chests. I mean I literally don't understand the thought process there- why have they brought them out? Just to intimidate?
That video is awesome
=))
The US has shown that murder for the cause of "protecting property" is 100% a-ok, so probably 80% for intimidation, and 20% to commit apparently-legal murder.
EDIT: Just fact checking myself, I'm referencing Kyle Rittenhouse here, and it has yet to be determined if the murder he committed is legal or not.
So people shouldn't be free to speak or they should?
Bear in mind I do think all of this talk of 'free speech' recently is nonsense- you can't be free to say anything, and even if you do it doesn't mean that people shouldn't be allowed to disagree with you, which is what some of these people seem to think it does.
Slander and Libel, like most crimes I guess, all come down to money. If you say things that inhibit a person's money making ability, it's a crime.
Well that's fair enough then. And I do agree with you.
Were there attacks that weren't just facts? If so, that is shoddy.
Oh, there's always fact involved, for sure. But the facts are often presented with colourful language and verdicts before any trial has happened. Again, CNN reported absolutely nothing I could ever disagree with, but their journalism lacked the objectivity and "neutrality" that I expect. CNN had clearly chosen a side, and while I am on that very same side, it also demonstrates how important the figurative pinch of salt is when reading their stories.
That said, it's not like trump hadn't it coming, right? After blurting out "FAKE NEWS!" like a hooligan for years he had pretty much painted a target on his forehead for CNN and other stations to aim at, hadn't he? Man, it's all become such a mess...
I'm careful with words of optimism regarding Biden, simply because he has yet to prove himself. But one thing I'm sure we can expect is an end to this polarization, at least from him. Whether this will also be true for other Democrats and for journalists, is, as @CommanderRoss has correctly pointed out, another question entirely. Still, if the president at the very least can set the right example, perhaps some of the socio-political tension currently choking America can be softened. Let's hope.
I'm not naive. There will always be those who cripple unity, who defy it, who fight against it. But surely the last thing we want is for the "supreme leader" of the country to actually endorse or, even worse, participate in that. The primary reason why I harbour nothing but loathing and contempt for trump is precisely that: the fact that he persistently and stubbornly feigned ignorance about how much damage his agitating words were causing to the nation, combined with the fact that he himself committed the ultimate sin of spreading and perpetuating the very lies that were the root of such madness as we have seen played out in the Capitol a few weeks ago.
Angry rednecks are tough to control, but when their president practically orders them to take action, chaos will inevitably ensue. For that, I hold trump and no-one but trump directly responsible. And for that, among other reasons, I want to see him punished.
Yeah I find their reporting a bit too strong and one-sided. As you say, I don't even disagree with them, but I don't want my news being framed like that. Also they waffle on for hours without any actual content and barely any reporting, with dear old Wolf Blitzer constantly trying to assure you that this is urgent and breaking news, and not just barely anything happening at all. In the Capitol attacks it was ITV News from the UK that actually had their reporter inside the insurrection, while CNN were just all asking each other about it in the studio.
I watched a bit of CNN on inauguration day when Trump was leaving the White House, and the news networks only had cameras using telephoto lenses from about half a mile away outside the grounds at the time, and one of the anchors said "He looks like a small man", and I was thinking, well yeah- they all do! These cows are small, those are far away.
Well, all the more reason why CNN should try to elevate itself by bringing news rather than opinions. If Fox News leans too far to one side, CNN shouldn't respond by "counter-leaning" to the other side. Let Fox make fools of themselves; meanwhile, bring the news, cold and objectively. I accept a little "opinionating" but as @mtm said, CNN sometimes brings BIG ALARMING NEWS FACTS! that turn out next to nothing. I equate some of their reporting to how football matches are being covered: people scream like maniacs while not a lot is going on... ;-)
They are definitely too tabloid and sensationalistic. However I do think the "objective" reaction to Trump's presidency is to be condemnatory...
I've got nothing to say because I actually think I completely agree. ;-)
I think it was very refreshing after the election when pretty much all news networks decided enough was enough and could no longer dance around the fact that Trump was simply saying stuff that was unfounded. Previously they've always said stuff like "he repeated his assertion" etc. which passed no judgement, but when he's saying such huge outright lies I think it was good to report them as such and not try to find a way to avoid it.
But editorialising shouldn't really come as a replacement for reporting, which is what CNN seems to be. Crucially I've seen not very much in the way of impressive reporting from them, and they barely even interview any pundits, they just interview themselves. The election coverage was incredibly insular and repetitive in the way UK election coverage never is: you'd think they didn't have any staff outside their one small studio.
Personally I think Jon Sopel on the BBC hits the perfect note of reporting what's going on and framing that with context and not sensationalising it. I've been listening to him and Emily Matlis on the Americast too, and that's very good.