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
Trump is his worst enemy though, and is more than likely to take the knife out and start jabbing himself at any moment.
Watch for the media to pile it on between the Convention end and the first debate to get the numbers back on a more favourable footing. Watch the markets as well (we're getting an unlikely summer bump precisely in order to showcase the 'rosey' scenarios for the economy, but I'd strongly advise being out of equities this fall, particularly if Trump is close).
I respect him, but he should have stuck by his supporters instead of abandoning them to tow the party line.
Sanders doesn't technically belong to the Democratic Party. This has been the under-reported aspect of the campaign. Those who say the DNC screwed him are forgetting that they were under no obligation to ever help him.
I know this, its just an expression. After touring the country to get people to support his message, he abondons the supporters and the message and joins forces with the reptilians.
The thing is.......1968 seems to be on repeat. Eating out an establishment party from the inside out is much easier and effective in American politics. Just look at the Tea Party...and Donald Trump. The Sanders-supporters know how unfair the Electoral College would be for Bernie Sanders if he would have founded a 'Socialist Democratic Party' or if he would be on a ticket for the Green Party. Because then he wouldn't stand a chance. The USA has a strict 2-party system, and not, like The Netherlands, a multi-party system.
So Sanders thought he could do a similar upset like Donald Trump did. But people forget that ultra-right-wing revolt within the Republican Party has been going on since 2010, whereas ultra-left-wing-ers and progressives within the Democratic Party have only been organizing themselves since Bernie Sanders started his campaign. Hence why populist Trump simply had a better chance to 'eat the establishment party from the inside out' than Bernie Sanders.
Absolutely. Hence I posted it.
Just for people who are interested: I am watching the roll call vote right now :-):
http://www.zahitvstation.com/watch-cnn-usa-live
Depressing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI
Oh, no! Not this nonsense again... Trump is obviously left of the meanstream Republicans. Not only that, he is also more left-wing than the Democratic nominee when it comes to many significant issues (like trade). Before the primatries started, EVERYBODY thought that Trump would easily lose the evangelican vote to Cruz and others in the race, exactly because how left he is of most Republicans.
Yeah, I'm all for people like Colbert, but they should to at least be honest with their audience.
Sanders ANNIHILATED Clinton is West-Virginia, yet she still got more delegates in the state thanks to those superdelegates. Sickening. I can't watch this...
That Trump video is hilarious. The Donald in full swing is a late night comedian's gold.
And people wonder why Trump needs to use more extreme rhetoric...
Props to you @chrisisall. I know you are putting your head above your heart. Bernie conducted himself with great dignity and decency during this convention, and the Clinton forces showed admirable sensitivity in supporting his prominent role at the convention. In watching the vote today, I felt like I was looking at America in all if it's extraordinary diversity. The genius of America, for all of it's problems, is how it integrates it's endlessly diverse populations into the mainstream. There are obviously very big problems, particularly with young black males, but only the Democrats seem to want to try to tackle the issues. Trump could have been a genuine candidate for change, but he has conducted himself badly as a petty bully, and demonstrated a temperament that is chillingly destructive. I would have liked a better candidate than Clinton, but the choice is binary. Not voting, or voting for the 2 independents is a vote for Trump.
Senator Sanders swallowed a bitter pill with dignity; I could & should do no less. And I bow to his political knowledge. The Bernie-or-busts tried their gambit and it didn't work. I went with it myself for show, but they KNEW Trump was their trump card. Lesser of two, once again. We will keep fighting the good fight AFTER littlerHittler is out of the way.
Not sure that I agree with this.
I think you're going to find a lot of disgruntled Republicans going for the Johnson/Weld ticket. While it might not seem that way, not all Republicans and/or conservatives are the blood-thirsty mob that just convened in Cleveland. There will be a good number that move over to Gary Johnson, especially if he can rise to 15% in the polls and secure his place in the presidential debates, thus giving his candidacy a legitimacy as the only quasi-conservative alternative to The Donald.
If that happens, then Trump should start to get nervous. He won't take a massive number of Republican votes, but Johnson stands a chance to take enough to be a thorn in Trump's side.
That's true. I was mainly looking at it from the other side. It's usually a case of the insurgent or third party candidates hurting the challenger, which in this case would be Trump (given that most view Clinton as another 4-8 years of Obama), but convention has been pretty much thrown out the window in this cycle.
It could be a case of which third party candidate absorbs the most amount of disgruntled voters, but I'd tend to think that, in the long run, the progressives will mostly get behind Clinton. She's at least made an attempt (regardless of how much conviction one finds behind it) to bring the party together, whereas Trump just seems content to burn the Republican party to the ground. I think if there were Democratic equivalents of Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney coming out and supporting Jill Stein (which Bush and Romney are rumored to be doing for Johnson), then you might see two third parties really make a difference here. But, given that Johnson is said to be the only third party candidate who will be on the ballot in all 50 states, coupled with Trump's incredible unpopularity, I would guess that Johnson will have more of an effect on the Republicans than Stein on the Democrats. Just a guess, though.
At this point, that's what it looks like it'll be. Thankfully, Johnson gives those of us on the right someone to vote for that isn't The Donald. Takes care of two birds with one stone: Trump doesn't get our vote and potentially help further destabilize the two-party structure.
:))
I don't really agree. Only a vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. Voting for Stein or Johnson is not the mortal sin that a vote for Trump represents. :((
I think Johnson will get the Republican voters that can't stand Trump and Stein will get the Democratic voters that can't stomach Hillary. Based on the way the Ds and the Rs have treated their apostate elements, I think Trump is going to lose a lot more voters to Johnson than Hillary loses to Stein.