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 just wanted to turn the topic around a bit with some other stuff related to US Elections and US presidents, not necessarily being the fucked up killing zone that Clinton and Trump are in now.
History gives you reference points and could shed you some fresh new light on today's politics. So, if no one in here cares, then that's a clear sign that even in here people don't give a shit about history anymore.
Well, at least we've got someone back in here who's willing to defend Trump. It gets pretty boring trying to have a political debate where everybody's more or less in agreement.
@Timmer, I'd love to see some examples of leftist hostility towards blacks. Please post some pertinent links if you can find them. And no, Trump once again saying, "I'm not the racist, YOU'RE the racist!" doesn't count.
As for Ann Coulter: oh, please. On the one hand you acknowledge that she's just indulging in hyperbole to get people to pay attention to her, and on the other hand you quote her making up a quote from liberals, regretting that they have only one country to sacrifice for their TV gigs? With full ironic intent: We're not the hypocrites, SHE's the country-sacrificing hypocrite!
At least William F. Buckley's ramblings were cogent. Yours are going to have to work a little harder to attain that elevated status.
So we can move on. If you have read enough of Trump's own words, his daily comments, then there is no need to read below. But it is info I'm just sharing with whoever may find it of interest.
Here is this, on Trump's history regarding his own business dealings and racism.
And his tweeted comments on the tragic news of this death are typical (he often reacts to tragedy by promoting himself. The tweets after his initial tweet were apparently sent by his team, but not him; trying to soften him looking so callous (again):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/27/donald-trump-tries-to-leverage-a-high-profile-murder-into-a-campaign-appeal/
Several reporters have noted, over the past weeks, that Trump's own tweets are from his Android phone, others are not by him (but put out as him). Interesting.
Example of tweets sent after Paris and San Bernadino tragedies:
Julián Assange and WikiLeaks. Helped by pro-Russian hacker Guccifer 2.0
Feel free to skip this and move on to other things of course. Not pleasant reading.
The thread can remain a Trump-bashing fest btw. We conservatives aren't as engaged. I don't like Hillary but she doesn't scare me nor does Trump, so there is nothing to fret about.
I'm on days off. Once back to work I have to focus those challenges.Friendly Bond or even heated Bond discussions sure but partisan politics not a good distraction when you have to focus. Oh please, such hyerbole. I realize Coulter can provoke such invective. She goes out of her way to both insult and mock liberals.
But I didn't bring Coulter up. Old friend @graves did. He called her a fascist. So out of curiosity, I googled her latest scribblings and discovered she was anything but,which of course is obvious, but I thought I would see what she was on about these days.
Not being American, I don't spend a whole lot of time delving into what the shriller pundits from both left and right are beating each over the head about each week. I prefer a Canadian conservative perspective.
However in her Aug 17 column -in reference to the hyberbole no doubt surrounding the current Presidential contest - she did pump out this hilarious piece, demonstrating how media purposely make effort to distort her remarks, even though they know better.
"On “Good Morning America” about 10 years ago, I was asked about a (fantastic*) joke I’d told about John Edwards four months earlier. (That joke was also lied about, but that’s not today’s topic.)
Here’s the “GMA” transcript, June 25, 2007:
CHRIS CUOMO (ABC NEWS)
(Off-camera) You say you were joking.
ANN COULTER (POLITICAL COMMENTATOR)
“Oh yeah. I wouldn’t insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards. Now, that would be mean. But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I’ve learned my lesson. If I’m gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”
I’m not a rhetorician, but I believe this would be called a “syllogism,” or “deductive reasoning”:
It is acceptable for a person to say X;
I am a person;
Therefore it’s acceptable for me to say X.
Or maybe it’s just sarcasm about the media’s rank hypocrisy.
Whatever it’s called, the screamingly obvious point was to illustrate how our constitutionally protected guardians of liberty in the press go mental over my every joke, but don’t make a peep about far more aggressive rhetoric from liberals.
Among the possible responses to what I said on “GMA” are:
— That’s different! Maher was talking about Dick Cheney.
— We have a firm policy of pretending not to understand jokes about Democrats.
— OK, OK, you’re right. We were just trying to make you cry, so you’d either come to our side or stop writing.
In the realm of the sane, however, the possible responses do not include: ANN COULTER CALLED FOR JOHN EDWARDS TO BE KILLED IN A TERRORIST ATTACK!
Guess which one the entire media went with?
Mike Baker, Associated Press, Tuesday, June 26, 2007: “Elizabeth Edwards pleaded Tuesday with Ann Coulter to ‘stop the personal attacks,’ a day after the conservative commentator said she wished Edwards’ husband, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, had been killed by terrorists.”
Marc Ambinder, Atlantic Online, June 26, 2007: “Coulter herself said, ‘If I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.'”
Tom Foreman, CNN correspondent, June 27, 2007: “Conservative commentator Ann Coulter jokes about Democratic contender John Edwards being killed by terrorists.”
CNN’s Kiran Chetry, “American Morning,” June 27, 2007: “Elizabeth Edwards confronting conservative commentator Ann Coulter … She was referring to Coulter’s comments the day before when Coulter said she wished Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards had been killed by terrorists. Coulter responded to Edwards’ request with a laugh.”
Harry Smith, CBS’ “The Early Show,” June 28, 2007: “Welcome back to ‘The Early Show.’ Conservative political commentator Ann Coulter is known for making outrageous comments. This week she said Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards should be killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”
Hundreds of news outlets repeated this lie, without even mentioning Maher — i.e., what we call “the point” — although a few sportsmen included vague references to Maher’s comment deep within their stories.
This isn’t taking something “out of context” — it’s a lie. Try quoting the full sentence! Ironically, the media’s rewrite pretty forcefully proved my point about the gigantic double standard for liberals and conservatives: In order to prove I was a monster, the media put a liberal’s words in my mouth — the exact same words they hadn’t minded when a liberal said them.
I keep hearing abstract claims about Trump being “out of control,” making “mistakes,” saying “outrageous” things, but whenever I ask for a specific example, all I get are the media’s apocryphal versions of what Trump has done — never something he actually did.
All campaign news coverage today is an adaptation of MSNBC’s “In Other Words” game, where a Republican saying, “I don’t think Obama has been a good president” becomes HE CALLED OBAMA THE N-WORD!
The media may think their versions are logical extensions of what Republicans have said, but this is a presidential election. I think voters deserve to hear the truth and not Rachel Maddow’s demented translations.
==
The hutzpah of Coulter is such that's she's all in. She knows her remarks will be distorted, mis-reported etc, thus giving her fodder for more books and columns. Anyone that actually reads her columns can see what she's actually going on about.
She prattles on about the same small-c conservative values, as Buckley, Thomas Sowell (excellent piece here from his conservative intellectual black perspective on Trump and Blacks http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell081916.php3 ) Ben Shapiro etc.
Put them all in a room and they'd get along famously. Even populate with some of the shriller liberal punditariat and there is no reason to think they couldn't keep things civil. Civility is apolitical. She and Bill Maher have very civil discussions on-air, even though they jibe each other incessantly.
She knows the game. Politics is the dirtiest of games. She knows full well that opponents will fight back with a shoot-the-messenger approach. Distort lie, whatever you got to do. So she knows the attacks are coming. Anything goes when you are trying to push votes, especially from strategists and partisan media.
Less so from the actual politicians. They are more about blowing a lot of hot air and trying to get the right soundbite out there.
Republican pundits went just as hard at Obama, as liberal vultures are going after Trump now.
And Trump has hired new professional money-grubbing strategists, who would probably work for any Republican candidate (its not a bad idea to throw in with one Party, or your messaging could be flipped on you) to ratchet up the anti-Hillary rhetoric.
Trump btw did not set out to take down the DC uniparty monopoly. Rather he just isn't one of them, so he's a threat. He could potentially upset their apple cart of entrenched entitlements.
Mind you the DC power structure is so entrenched and powerful, they will probably eventually own Trump too, should he win. Hillary is already part of the system.
His populist bluster might win an election but it can only go so far, should he actually have to butt heads with the bi-party ruling elites.
Joe Strummer was right, or whoever wrote that song. " I fought the law and the law won" Strummer wrote some great protest songs.
From my sane sensible small-c conservative perspective, beholden to no actual party ( I'd even vote Liberal or Democrat if they'd adopt a lean effecient government approach or if a sitting Conservative govenrment was rife with corruption or complacency) this election is looking good.
I can't lose really. Obama is done and Bernie is buried. Their collectivist approach was scary. Thats my bias.
Hillary though has a more pragmatic approach to economic policy. The pipeline is good to go for example. America will be open for business just fine under either candidate.
I even think Hillary will make effort to curb illegal immigration, seeing as its become such a hot button issue.
Illegal immigration is not good for a healthy economy. You do need law and order. Underground illegal economies subvert the supply-and-demand equation which needs a legal regulatory framework to thrive
Trump is the better choice obviously from where I sit, because a Republican Administration would generally be more amenable to a small-c conservative approach to government, maybe just barely mind you, but we'll take what we can get.
And of course, post whatever you'd like. I'm just posting articles of interests and my opinion, also.
Anyone else care to weigh in?
Yes, but that agitator might swing the elections in a certain way.
Snowden and Assange have become real-life Bond villains. It's almost like seeing S.P.E.C.T.R.E. at work :-S
Call me Kayakisall. ;)
@Gustav, I think Bernie was right when he said, essentially "I'm tired of hearing about your damn e-mails." The American people are tired of hearing about the emails. They're not paying any attention to that story anymore. Hillary's emails could kill a baby seal on 5th Avenue and it wouldn't make any difference to this election. The emails just don't resonate with people. Maybe it's because so many of us are in the habit of largely ignoring so many of the emails we personally get every day. Another bloody commercial pitch for Sears or Costco, so what? *Delete!* Assange releases another 1500 of Hillary's emails, *Delete, Delete, Delete* We can't hit the bloody button fast enough!
But, you're right, at this point, I don't think the American public cares, outside of those who are so anti-Clinton that they won't let anything negative about her go. I personally don't care much about it anymore, although it does occasionally give me pause to wonder about how loose she might be with government secrets as president, but then I just think about the trouble Trump could end up getting himself into on Twitter from the Oval Office and I feel less concerned about Clinton.
No kidding. I knew Strummer didn't write the song and said as much The actual writer of song was immaterial to what was only an incidental sidebar observation. But if you want to get all pissy because your precious political sensibilities are challenged on a Bond message board of all places, free world I guess.
Coulter was saying their slogan is effectively such and such , but I think that is clear.
Understanding your incoherence though is another matter.
And yes we get extensive USA election coverage up here in the Great White North. The US networks are bundled into our cable packages.
The Cdn network coverage though isn't as shrill.
For the real hyperbolic excitable stuff from both sides , we need tune in the US media.
We also got detailed Brexit coverage and get lots of other world news and right from our own Cdn news services, so we can chime in when so inclined.
Oh BTW: legalized marijuana -- for or against? Underground illegal economies & the free market, yea or nay?
I disagree. It only creates further destruction of unity and harmony. Politicians in the end don't say: "I'm sorry. I should have listened to Assange" The worst thing of this all, is that it creates further mistrust. If Hillary does things that are not good for the public eye, then Julián Assange does exactly the same.
If the man Assange truly was so ethical and in support of a better democracy, then he should have called for BOTH pro-Russian and pro-USA hackers. Not just one side. And he should foremost see, that hacking still is a crime. A true crime.
So we're starting to apply certain standards differently to people who in essence are doing the same dangerous or criminal things.
I find that entirely dangerous. And it will only destroy society further. Because people like them are blurring the ethical and moral standards. For every supporter of Assange, there will be more fiercefully haters. For every Hillary supporter there will be a person who hates her. And for every Trump lover, there will be a Trump hater.
Julián Assange is only facilitating the destruction of cohesion, harmony and unity in western society. And on top of that, he further destroys trust in the judicial branch of democracies. Because sooner or later, both a populist and an establishment politician will execute a crime. Bit only one of them will be supported by the public opinion.
And that is dangerous.
My sincere wish is that men like Snowden and Assange start showing some balls, admit that THEY executed crimes, and sit out a prison sentence. That's how it should be.
Hillary wasn't following protocol with her emails. From a professional point of view I'd get pretty angry with her (data security is part of my job to an extent) but that would be it. I guess now most people know this.
Assange's group is actively breaking the law. They are willingly breaking in to the Democratic systems and opening emails meant for other people. That's illigal for a reason. I wonder how people would react if it was the red cross or something. Even worse, I understand Wikileaks has also made public information concearning child rape, with the full names and adresses of the vicitms in there too....
All in al lthey are turning into a huge public liabillity without any moral background.
I know power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, that's why I don't like any presidential system, but that's a democratic choice. But assuming everyone in power has a hidden agenda is nothing short of paranoia. Even those in power are humans.
This is funny - what is wrong about the truth being brought into the light of the day? That is the problen we have - not enough truth out there.
So - do I get that right - they are allowed to lie to us with every word they mutter, but digging in their graveyeards is not?
Commander, you really think ANYbody out there in a job higher then yours and mine, is without an agenda worth knowing about BEFORE we vote for them? Wow, Another ??? for me. We prefer the lies to not breaking rules SOMEBODY made at some point. Now people act, as it is was written in stone. Well, its not and most are worse shit right now. I say, bring out the truth about all those, who want to rule US and tell us, what we have to do. Its insane. Again - the sheep herd on its way.
A pipeline from Canada is a good idea? OMG - but of course, who needs the land? Why not keep on destroying it? As long as the money flows, as long we have fuel for our cars. This is such a sad statement and reflects, where it all goes wrong.