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
I think it'll probably continue this way because I don't get the sense that there's any cohesion whatsoever between Trump's camp and Pence's. These are two men essentially running two separate campaigns.
Pence was far down Trump's VP list. Pence has basically sold out, joining a ticket with Trump that he doesn't share much in the way of common ideology with. His political career was in jeopardy as he was going to have a very tough time getting re-elected governor in Indiana, so he found a chance to jump ship and keep his political career going, so he took it.
As I've said before, they've been brought together entirely out of desperation. Trump was desperate for a bona fide conservative to join his ticket and Pence was desperate to keep the political career going. You can tell just watching the two of them together that there's no cohesion there.
Give me a cigar & a Beverly. Oh, I'm sorry -- Howard can't smoke any more. Has to keep his pants on too...
Damn didn't they see this coming or what...?
AHHHH HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
Great! =))
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/conservatives-agree-dnc-was-disaster-for-gop#ifrndnloc
Double standards buddy, double standards :-)
Pence is just along for the ride. Usually you would be able to say that the VP candidate speaks for the Presidential candidate, as that would extend into their time in office should they be elected. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Pence is there for one reason and one reason only, so that Trump can point to him and say that he has a conservative on board with him.
I do think both conventions were very effective in rallying their own base. They offered stark contrasts:
The Republican Convention: A more pessimistic view on the current state of America, one that has to be radically changed by one man only: Donald Trump. America isn't great, but it can be made Great Again.
The Democratic Convention: A more optimistic view on the current state of America, one that has to be radically changed by not just Hillary Clinton, but by everyone: Stronger Together. America is great, and it can be made even greater.
Which of these messages will resonate more in the upcoming 101 days? It's hard to say.
(older) White working-class men and un-educated men in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and New Hampshire do feel pessimistic about their future. And for them it can feel better if there's a candidate who makes that feeling a campaign slogan. For them, The Donald is the man.
But for the more educated, younger people, educated white men, women, Hispanics and Afro-Americans (think of states like North-Carolina, Florida, Colorado and Virginia), the optimistic message of 'Stronger Together' can make serious inroads in their minds.
To avoid an electoral equilibrium however, one of these parties, the Democrats or the Republicans, need to make an appeal to independents, educated Republicans, moderates, swing voters....and also progressives.
Having heard both Trump's and Clinton's speeches I do think that Hillary's speech made better inroads to these groups. Clinton's speech was a bit wonky at times, and Hillary isn't the best public speaker, but I felt a bit bewildered, in a weird positive way. Because while her message echoed a lot of Sander's left-wing/progressive agenda, especially on domestic issues, she also sounded very Reagan-esque. That 'shining house on the hill' speech from Reagan will always stick to my mind, and Hillary can't make that message shine as good as Reagan. But she uttered it. Thus basically ticking a lot of boxes regarding domestic issues, but especially foreign issues, which really felt like Republicanism from the 1980's until Bush Jr. left office.
And that's why I think the Democratic Convention in the end was the more succesful one. Both conventions deserve an A for appealing to their base. Both these conventions where very effective in that sense.
But, I do think the Democratic Convention did better than the Republican Convention in reaching out to people outside their own base demographics. This also goes for Clinton's speech as opposed to Trump's 'dystopian Gotham-esque portrayal. So when it comes to that, I would give the Republican Convention a B- and the Democratic Convention an A.
And I am not the only one: http://us.cnn.com/2016/07/29/politics/democratic-convention-gop-moment-national-security/index.html
Make no mistake. A minority of Republicans do not like Trump's ultra-right-wing agenda of complete protectionism and more isolationalism (educated white men, some evangelicals, guys like Mitt Romney, John McCain, John Kasich and even Ted Cruz). But, on average those are 20% of the entire Republican identified electorate, of which 'Trumpism' seems to be the biggest chunk. And these more...Reagan-esque Republicans can be found in many ways on the left-wing edges of the GOP, as opposed to 'Trumpites'.
The group that the Democrats seem to struggle with, are the left-wing progressives, fired up by the likes of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and even Jill Stein. But on the whole, on average, those are like 10% of the entire Democratic identified electorate. And while Trump more or less 'invaded' the GOP, many big ranking Democrats could 'adjust' much better to the ideals of left-wing progressives, because that portion of the Democratic Party still isn't as big and as influential as currently 'Trumpites' are.
So to summarize everything: We still have 101 days until the US Elections. But I do think the Democrats still have the edge now. And in defense of Donald Trump -Mike Pense actually had to do this many times in the past days- I would really become a bit more careful in judging foreign affairs. Hillary seems to have the edge when it comes to be an unyielding, 'cold' and tough Commander In Chief.
And since the DNC-Leaks keep being released, as well as more cyber attacks happening at this very moment (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-democrats-investigation-exc-idUSKCN1092HK ), I do think it would really be wiser if Trump tones down a bit on his foreign comments.
I think it could backfire on him, especially since people think Donald Trump wants to trap the Democrats. I find that an incoherent thought, because these DNC-Leaks do have serious consequences and seem to develop in a similar way as the SonyLeaks. And I think it's even worse, since this is not about hacks and cyber attacks on servers from commercial entities. No, they are hacks into political parties. And like every political party, they have campaign strategies. To influence that could really mean influencing election outcomes. And I find that dangerous.
Donald Trump tried to reframe the elections into a referendum on Clinton. But in the end the Democrats reframed that 'reframed message' into, perhaps an even more powerful choice: That of Donald Trump vs. America.
So Trump? Be careful. That doesn't mean that Clinton is out of harmsway. Because you need to warm up a bit :-).
Frankly, I found the story of Khan father & son (linked above you) a lot more interesting.
The wikileaks didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know or couldn't have guessed. The DNC prefered that their party actually nominate a Democrat. Big surprise here (not.) The most interesting thing about the wikileaks story -- the part that has the most unanswered questions, the part that could still blow up in somebody's face -- is the part about the Russian cyberhacking connection. Maybe not the reaction you're hoping for, but it's the only one I've got.
But this Trump/Putin/wikileaks hack is a genuine scandal that could cost Trump the election. There are now press items claiming that Trump won't release his taxes, not just because he pays no taxes, and gives nothing to charity, but because a lot of his projects are getting financed with Russiam money. His campaign chair, Manafort was a paid Russian lobbyist and a grade A creep. Putin and Assante hate Clinton, and are likely using Trump as their stooge to try to bring her down. Trumps kissing up to Putin, and his anti-NATO remarks, are beyond dumb. This is a serious scandal that is just developing and Trump thank goodness is too out of control to shut up about it. This scandal is gonna be huuuuggge.
You know, when I see this I think of my own country, The Netherlands. And I then urge all those Dutch people who are strongly opposed to anti-Muslim sentiments by saying "THIS is how you fight these dawned anti-Muslim xenophobic!" This speech, made me feel so proud. This is why America is great. And that comes from a Dutchman who feels left out by leaders who do not want to make this is talking point. Muslims are still human beings dammit. We can NOT generalize them by saying they all are 'potential terrorists'.
You will recall the 'trigger happy urge' with which all politicians (including Kerry, who was champing at the bit) wanted to go into Syria post 'red-line', don't you? Only Obama, at great cost to himself, stood firm and said no, and was given a face saving way out by Putin & Lavrov. I don't ever recall before such a difference in tone by a sitting Secretary of State's comments and his President's. Well, Obama will be gone in January. If anyone thinks Clinton would have said no under similar circumstances and pressure from the elites, then I've got a private email server & 30,000 emails to sell you.
Regarding the DNC hack - no, the story is not that the DNC was in the tank for the Dems. The story is that they lied about it and for over one year attempted to show that they were impartial. They clearly were not.
What I find truly amazing is the amount of concerted firepower in the MSM, the political establishment, the financial establishment, and most importantly the 'Republican establishment' that is directed at Trump. All this for a businessman who happens to have caught the mood of the country? That tells me he is doing something right.
For those interested, here is a decent and rational list of reasons why many folks who will vote Trump come November actually are doing it:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/donald-trump-voters/401408/
The hawkish generalization of those on the right is one of the areas where I differ from my fellow conservatives. The military should be the best in the world, we agree there, but should only be used when absolutely necessary and all other options have been completely exhausted.
Now, that said, I think Obama not acting on his "red line" was a mistake. I wasn't in favor of sending the military into Syria, but, if you're going to draw a red-line like Obama did, then you must back it up. Otherwise, the action of doing so in the future becomes pointless, as the enemy, whoever it may end up being the next time, will have reason to doubt the red-line.
If, as the president, you think you might not act should the red-line be crossed, then don't issue the red-line. It's not the end of the world if we don't get involved in every civil war across the globe, but I don't think it's a good idea to throw around ultimatums of that sort and then not follow through on them.
It would have been Libya/Iraq x 10 (ISIS/ISIL/Daesh would have probably taken over the entire country and its arsenal) and would have created a chaos that could have led to WW3 (last year showed us that Putin would have brought Russia in).
I don't think people realize how lucky we were to avoid that.
That 'incident' showed me who runs things in the Government. We all clearly could see how they were 'owned'. The only other time I saw that so clearly was during the Iraq fraud prior to March 2003.
Issuing the red-line was the mistake. My feeling is simply, though, if you're going to issue the red-line, follow through with it. A red-line shouldn't have been issued, however, if there was any doubt as to whether or not you'd want to intervene should the line be crossed. Obviously, there was some doubt there.
That's precisely what she is. She will probably be elected, as many refuse to see the obvious. The military–industrial complex and the same neocons that supported Bush are now backing her.
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/25/robert-kagan-and-other-neocons-back-hillary-clinton/
As I said, she will most likely be the next president, but don't act surprised when she continues the interventionist policy and increases the tensions in foreign relations. Perhaps something even worse.