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
Yes, I agree. This hounding needs to stop if a reasonable discussion is to be had.
Which when it comes to politics, never happens.
or
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/elections/2016/president-united-states/
Maybe there's something we could all take a lesson from here...
Have you learned nothing from Sean Connery, @Murdock? Never say never, again! ;)
a note on lucky for Clinton that the focus is on Trump:
Trump's current debt is far greater than he has disclosed:
So now we're back to the old "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument -- take the most effective attack that's been used against you and turn it on your opponent. Ho hum.
One topic this thread might want to take up is the question of why, exactly, political discourse in this country has become so caustic. Personally, I blame the "politics as entertainment" shows, the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks of this country, culminating with the entirety of the Faux News channel. They've been hyping the whole "leftists are unpatriotic, leftists hate America" line for so long that it's not surprising that we're unable to talk to one another rationally. It wasn't so very long ago that, at a John McCain for President rally, when a woman from the crowd shouted out something to the effect that "Obama's a Muslim!" McCain took a moment to explain to her, "No, Ma'am -- he's a patriotic American too, we just have different opinions, that's all." Now, professional entertainer D.Trump's crowds yell the most horrific things about his opponent, but he just smiles and eggs them on...
Well, what can I say :-). I think I've already said too much in here. Everything I say in here falls on deaf ears or isn't really helping people to...think a bit better, or to educate themselves a bit more. That's why humour can do things so much better :-).
You need to read a bit more about fascism.
Not surprising.
While the Trump campaign staff is hard at work, there is a quiet group working with FCC staffers on a startup. Follow the dark money.
Fascio=Group/association, or litterally "bundle"- as in a bundle of rice, which was the symbol of the fascists. Norwegian police also wear it on their uniforms, by the way. The symbolism is that you can tear apart one straw of rice, but not a bundle. Strength in unity.
To be fair, the fascists were not the first to come up with that idea.
You tend to forget some pivotal elements here. Especially how fascism worked in reality.
Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. It was, as you might know, influenced by socialism with nationalist tendencies. Fascism originated in Italy during World War I and spread to other European countries. It opposes liberalism (power and unity through strong self-determination and individualism), Marxism (power and unity through strong government, socialism) and anarchism and is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.
Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete. Yes, obsolete. And they regard the complete mobilization of society (angry mass gatherings) under a mostly totalitarian state as necessary to prepare a nation for conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. Forging national unity is pivotal here, so people with different views or opinions have a problem in such a society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, violent inuendo, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.
Richard Washburn Child, the American ambassador to Italy who worked with Mussolini and became his friend and admirer, actually defended Mussolini's opportunistic behaviour. He wrote:
In a way, many posters in here silently support the late fascist British ambassador Washburn Child, as solutions and ideas don't matter for them. They prefer to keep the society angry and resentful, as opposed to trying to solve problems.
Mussolini is also the man that we actually have to bring up when we talk about fascism here. In the early 20th century Mussolini was studying Georges Sorel. Sorel's emphasis on the need for overthrowing decadent liberal democracy and capitalism by the use of violence, direct action, general strikes and neo-Machiavellian appeals to emotion impressed Mussolini deeply. As we look at populism in The West now, Mussolini would be proud.
So in all honesty @Thunderfinger? If you really want to find out which presidential candidate this year is more 'fascist' or 'neo-fascist', then stop saying Hillary Clinton and her 'Stronger Together' mantra is the pivotal example of fascism. It's not true.
On the other hand, if we do apply fascist comparisons, then by all means, Donald Trump comes to my mind when reading Mussolini's biography. As you know, the descriptions neo-fascist or post-fascist have been applied more recently to describe parties of the far right.
Many supporters of Trump or Geert Wilders become angry when hearing or reading such comparisons. Even some posters in here. But the anger is unfounded and a prime example of historical ignorance, as those historical examples actually are entirely relevant again.
The Latin phrase E Pluribus Unum is found in the Journals of the Continental Congress, June 20, 1782, where it was used to describe the Great Seal adopted that day (1). From the Great Seal's earliest depiction (2), E Pluribus Unum has appeared on coins since 1795 (3) and has graced the back of $1 notes (4) since 1935. The phrase has been required on all U.S. coinage by law since February 12, 1873 (5). The Treasury Department produces all U.S. legal tender coins and notes for both public and private debts.
Above taken from this site, which may be of some interest: https://www.treasury.gov/about/budget-performance/strategic-plan/Pages/dlinks.aspx
http://greatseal.com/mottoes/unum.html
http://greatseal.com/faqs.html (And the conspiracy theorists about illuminati have a field day with this, I know - but here is some historical info)
His new campaign manager Kelly-Anne is advising and assisting. Former head of campaign Paul Manafort now being seriously investigated due to his exposed ties to criminal activity in Ukraine.
I do think the debates cannot help but feel like a bad game show, a reality tv show ... for sure, unlike anything else in American politics in more than 100 years. At least.
Note: These are from paid staff, not general public or volunteers. Not from Trump himself (who has already said plenty that is racist and inflammatory).
Feel free to post Hillary Clinton's staff's also. Have at it.
Yeah indeed, Trump serves HIS interests. And only HIS interests. How reassuring that is:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/why-donald-trump-isn-t-the-successful-businessman-he-claims-to-be-us-elections-republican-politics-7173666.html
What I need is a president who tries to represent ALL the people. Not just angry blue-collar people like these (Please don't ignore this video @Germanlady?):
But who represents everyone.
You say the truth is there to find 'for yourself'. I've been trained to weigh information, check sources, double check them, set them off to other sources, look for patterns, etc. All in all, trained as a historian. It isn't as easy as you claim, finding trustworthy sources, and none of the things you claim stand up to any scrutiny in my (scientific) methods. So I would be most interested in your sources.
Then there's the 'it's all a grand scheme' which people so often buy into. This is not the truth. In my work (Information Management) I've been able to see far more information then the average person. I'll tell you this: never blame a master plan when you can blame incompetence'. It isn't mine, btw, but it sure is true. Politicians have a huge workload, and an information overload. They make decisions as best as they can on the information given to them by those who work for them and those they see as close advisers, again trying to keep in mind the positions of all concearned. And this may very well mean a decision is made with too much help of one or other corporate party, but it never is part of a grand scheme, always a short term decision. The system pushes them that way. Grand schemes take years to come to existence, and that's too long: elections are on average every four to five years (not talking about Presidents specifically).
Then there's the media that now try to beat eachother with fast news, leaving no time to check the rumours or news'facts' they come across. They play the emotions for more viewers (making more money through commercials). So they end up unreliable at best. @bondjames rightly singled this out as one factor Trump understands well in his campaign. He's been playing the emotions all the time.
But I'm getting sidetracked now. What I want to point out is that there's no 'system'in place, no MIC, no Illuminaty or what have you that 'pull all the strings'. No human is capable of overseeing the complexity of politics.
If you want to find out about Hillary's health, there's only one source that is capable of helping you and that's her doctor. You won't find any of that information in public. If you want to know who may influence her, you have to see ho donetes most to her campaign and who sees her the most often, either directly or through trusted partners. Watch House of Cards and you'll get an idea of how this all works (or Yes minister, Yes prime minister, a series Margareth Thatcher was a huge fan of and which depicts politics quite accurately I find).
Sorry for the extended post peeps, but I thought it was about time to put some perspective in here as the discussion seems to hit the shallows again.
edited spelling failure due to lateness of the hour...
and his new campaign head trying to be succinct here: