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'm not a violent man, but I'm secretly hoping that some citizen does the world a favour, exercises his or her second amendment right, and dispatches these inexcusable miscreants to the afterlife. What a waste of valuable earthly resources they are.
I think of wider concern as appointments go is Steve Bannon as Chief White House Strategist. He will effectively be the Karl Rove to this Presidency. He stuck by Trump while many others fled and he has been rewarded. And he will be able to guide a man of no real convictions or policies. That is scary.
Rather, my issue is with John Bolton as possible Secretary of State. That foaming at the mouth war monger neocon makes Paul Wolfowitz seem like Mother Teresa. Rudy Giuliani is the other rumoured pick and he's not much better either. I don't believe he has the temperament for the Secretary of State job. Hopefully these are just media fabrications.
It goes to show that the media claims only whites are racist and only whites support Trump. Trump even came out and said anyone who is going around saying "your going to get deported" or trying to justify racism is completely wrong and not what he stands for!
On the electoral college. In Texas, local politics is a major major thing. A lot of small local towns heavily promote local voting and there's so many scandals in small towns it's really something else.
The American people vote to elect people who elect the president.
A lot of people go to the polls and only vote for the presidential candidate which does absolutely nothing. When you vote locally you start out with voting for say your county commishner and then your state reps;etc.
The republicans won the house and the senate because a lot of people went out and voted straight party. I think it's pretty obvious that more democrats voted, but the democrats obviously failed to vote locally. In the end they screwed themselves. It's pretty confusing but after a few government classes in college it starts to make sense.
The appointment of Bannon is extremely troubling. In my view, the alt-right, which Bannon has replaced, has no place in a presidential administration, and it makes it harder to give Trump a chance.
For the first time in my voting life, I'll agree with Harry Reid. That appointment needs to be rescinded.
Well - we'll agree to disagree on Bannon. I find the hate he has fostered to be offensive, dishonest and divisive. And if he doesn't actually hold those beliefs then he simply doesn't care about anything other than click bait numbers and that to me is a terrible mind set. His appointment shows two things - that Trump is tipping his hat to his supporters of the 'Washington outsider' notion and that he doesn't care about the message that it sends to everyone else when he appoints such a spreader of hate.
We can agree on Giuliani. He is terrible. The idea that he wants secretary of state is laughable - then again on reflection - nothing is laughable to me anymore...just possible. But Trump has to appoint those close to him, who went against the collective Republican wisdom in the early stages of the campaign - otherwise he will be over run by the conservative establishment who are queuing up on capitol hill like the white walkers at the wall.
I heard rumours that Laura Ingraham may have a shot at press secretary. Not sure how true that is. She's a pretty sharp cookie.
Couldn't agree more.
As a Republican, this whole thing has been difficult to watch. I think a lot of people are wanting to give Trump a chance, myself included, but the Bannon appointment is a bit too much to have to stomach. It's a slap in the face to the unity that Trump has thus far only paid lip service to. Watching Paul Ryan and his cohorts in Congress coalesce around Trump has been nauseating, to say the least. And to think that Rudy Giuliani could be Secretary of State would be hilarious if it weren't so frightening.
If this is where the Republican party is headed, more towards the alt-right than ever before, I may have to turn in my proverbial membership card. I'm not on board with this at all.
Amen Amen Amen Amen
Almighty and everlasting GOP & DNC, who came down among us to make heaven under Earth, lighten our darkness. Oh Instruments of God, grant us Thy peace.
I don't suppose you live in Shelby County, TN, do you Mendes?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/15/tennessee_official_david_barber_resigns_after_racist_facebook_posts.html
Nice to know that SOMEbody besides me and @Dalton is paying attention to reality.
Mad as in angry or mad as in insane? "If you're not angry you're not paying attention."
#-o
But, that's not news. Paul Ryan has been an opponent of Medicare for a very long time. The news is that he's now licking his chops, thinking he might actually be able to make a go of it. He sat for an interview with Fox News last week, where he began laying the groundwork. The Speaker's assault began, of course, with Obamacare. He said:
This is not remotely true. In fact, Obamacare cut the costs of Medicare, guaranteeing the program's solvency for another decade. So either Ryan is stupid (which he most certainly is not) or he is lying through his teeth. His plan, which he has detailed time and again, is to replace the program with subsidies that would help elderly people defray the costs of their insurance premiums.
The first problem with this is that Medicare is remarkably efficient (especially for a government program), with very low administrative costs. Private insurers are less so, which means that seniors would be getting less bang for their buck.
The second problem is that premiums would certainly rise more quickly than the subsidies would, so seniors would slowly but surely have fewer bucks with which to purchase their bang.
If Ryan gets his way, it would not be very long before seniors of modest means would find themselves unable to pay for their prescriptions, or for their hospitalizations, or for other medical needs. Surely, they would know whom to point the finger at. And if they were unable to figure it out, the nation's single largest lobbying group—AARP—would undoubtedly steer them in the right direction.
So, this certainly seems like political madness, since elderly people most certainly do vote. On the other hand, given what has already come to pass this election season, maybe there is no such thing as political madness any more.
This is what I mean if you are right-wing oriented, hugely 'hate' health-care systems, and think destroying it will actually cut costs. While in reality the cost-effectiveness of Medicare during Obama's reign has been proven already. Fact. Let's see if president-elect Trump picks this up, because he says he wants to be president of 'all the people'.
Couldn't agree more. It's past time, really. I think I'll be moving on from the "discussion" as well.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/15/politics/simpsons-trump-prediction-trnd/
You may remember that several days ago, I linked to an article pointing out that "The Simpsons" had predicted a Trump presidency sixteen years ago. It was intended as satire, as a cautionary tale. "Mend your ways or you'll end up with a President Trump." BOO!
But we didn't mend our ways, because of course people never really do, and now the Ghost of Christmas future has a grave he wants to show us. Go on, take a real good look. You voted for it, you get to sleep in it.
The point being, Yes, we actually CAN predict the future. I know because the same thing happened to me. I predicted the Reagan presidency in 1971. True story:
For those too young to remember, Ronnie was president from 1981-1989. In 1971, when I was a senior in high school, he was the governor of California, and not at all a popular one where I come from, not too far from Berkeley CA and not too long after his tragic response to the People's Park protests. (Look it up but here's a hint: somebody died.) Assigned in English class to create a "newscast of the future" for the year 1984 and present it verbally to the rest of the class, I considered my task carefully. I knew I wanted to start out with an attention-grabbing bit. So my presentation began with me as the newscaster, intoning in my best Walter Cronkite voice: "President Reagan announced today..."
The classroom eruption was more than I could have expected. "WHAT?" "NO!!!" "ARRGH!!!" Mission accomplished! I have no idea now what my fictional futuristic President Reagan was announcing and it doesn't matter: I have predicted the future, even before Bart Simpson (or his scriptwriter, actually) did -- and as a proven soothsayer, I must say (and you are free to ignore but you'll learn, oh yes my friend YOU WILL LEARN!) that Bart is correct: the future you have chosen sucks. Ronald Reagan was the first step on the slippery slope that led to the Aids epidemic and the death of the American Labor movement and finally President Trump. Bedtime for Democracy, y'all, and as for those great paying jobs you thought you were voting for? "You're fired!"
Why? Taking lessons maybe?
That's a rather bold statement, considering the fact that most of these protesters either voted for Sanders during the primaries, for Jill Stein during the elections or stayed at home alltogether.
No one is "stealing" another one's moral high ground. I am a Clinton supporter, and most loyal Clinton supporters are moderates and centrists and on the whole progressive on social issues. Blaiming this all on Clinton is bullocks.
Perhaps we should blame it on the Italian-style, banana-republic-style election cycles in the USA. I mean, on the previous page I actually posted some contents, some ideas that some Republicans have. But it's completely ignored, or no one is interested in actual policy agenda's.
Instead, the bickering in here continues. Divisiveness only intensifies and perhaps intensifies more ever since Trump got elected. And the policies and issues are completely forgotten. Every supporter of Trump in here who believed the post-election atmosphere would be one of hope and positivity, is severely naive. And I don't wish to discuss in such an environment.
So I agree, let's close this topic.
I absolutely agree. I've never been a fan of censorship and shutting down discussion, no matter what the matter is. We have similar protests on the Bond Production thread as well and I disagree there too. If someone is not happy with the discussion, just go to another thread and please yourself there.