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
Why don't you just answer people's questions straight up instead of ridiculing them all the time? Did it ever occur to you that some people actually are honestly looking for guidance to what both sides are saying in regards to presidential race? I really think you would get your point across to a lot more people if you didn't act so sarcastic towards people.
What do you mean "scripted"? We must dispel with this notion that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing. :D
I'm not entirely sure who I'm for in this nonsense yet. I like Bernie, but I've traditionally gone Republican over the years and all things being equal would lean that way again. I wish that Kasich could get more traction because he sounds like a decent middle ground between the establishment of Bush and Rubio and the insurgent candidates like Trump and Cruz, and he often sounds like the voice of reason in what has already been a terrible display of mud-slinging by most of the Republican field.
Not sure what to make of Trump yet.
OK, good answer. But let's just use a hypothetical example here. We don't know what he's going to do with that money, or if he will even spend a penny of it. However, let's suppose just for the sake of argument though that he wants to take some of that money to open up three more offices of his company. And he wants to build those offices from scratch. If Bernie takes 70 to 80% of that amount from him, he'll be lucky if he could build one office. If he builds two or three offices, he can hire 300 people to design the offices temporarily, and then he can hire 1000 people for permanent employment. If he only has enough money for one office, he can hire 100 people to design and construct the offices, and hire only 200 people to work permanently. That leaves a lot more people out of work because he does not have as much disposable income to spend on the economy.
And again, it's not that he wouldn't have enough money to live comfortably personally. He would, but again, we don't know what plans he would have for the money. Perhaps he wanted to take the $50 million that Bernie wants and gives the money to charity, thereby helping thousands of more people then he can help if Bernie and the government takes all that money. I understand Bernie will help pay for the needy with that money, but wouldn't it be better if Larry decided where he wanted to donate the money to on his own?
A strong economy is about a river of monetary exchange. When the river is dammed, the river is obstructed, and much of the flow becomes stagnant, resulting in less flow. This hurts the economy, and strangely enough, the people hoarding/concentrating the wealth in the first place, as they need to further concentrate that wealth to see it remain as valuable as it was before the economy which THEY THEMSELVES damaged devalues it.
I made it as easy to understand as I could... children's book-type pictures might help, but I'm a bit limited in that respect by this format.
:P
Just to answer for myself, but I don't think it would be. If Bernie were to get everything done that he wants to get done, his programs would be helping far more people than any charitable donation that one of these billionaires would be making. Again, and it's a big if, when it comes to Bernie getting his plans passed, his programs that would use the money would give millions of people health insurance and save the shrinking middle class of America thousands of dollars per family, something that a billionaire's donation certainly wouldn't.
Most likely, though, Bernie is going to run into Republican obstructionism in the Congress and none of it will get through and, if it does, it'll be a half-baked version designed to placate certain special interests.
As an example, when the Govt bailed out the banks, they put next to no conditions on what that money could be used for. Guess what? It went on bonuses and not loans to small businesses. That is bad incentives, and that is because of politics and 'trickle down' economics (which works to a degree, but it has almost become a religion with Republicans).
Ironically, it is Trump who has been discussing this. Not the others. He is a Republican, but one who is a populist interested in the little guy. He is quite different from the other Repubs who are still stuck in the Laffer (Reagan's man - who said you cut taxes and the economy will grow miraculously) curve discussion of the 80's. That concept has been debunked by academics and by the facts (it grew the economy but exploded the deficit as well).
I get your point about Bernie. He is way on the other side of the fence. That's why I called him (and he calls himself) a socialist in the other thread. However, we are so far on one side of the spectrum right now (the side of special interests, big money and tremendous income inequality) that we may in fact need a socialist to push the system in the other direction.
Damn shame really.
*Did I sound vehement? I was going for vehement.
So would I.
There's only one scenario in which I'll vote for Hillary, and that's if it ends up being her vs. Cruz for the presidency. Aside from that, Hillary will not get my vote. I won't even consider voting for her under any other circumstance.
I'm not sure I'd count Bush out yet. Not saying I want to see him as the nominee, but he seems to be gaining a bit of momentum. If Trump ends up self-destructing, as he seemed to try to do at debate Saturday night, before Bush runs out of money, he could make a run.
I do find it interesting that the exact same thing that happened to Clinton in 2008 is happening to her again. Almost exactly the same thing. Going into the race as the presumed nominee only to be caught by the charismatic challenger. It's even more surprising this time because it's a 1v1 race (O'Malley was never a factor). Last time she had to contend with both Obama and a pre-scandal Edwards, but there really isn't as much of an excuse for her this time around.
I agree about Bush. He is the one I'm frightened about. He is the establishment's man (not Rubio) and they are spending a bucketload of money in South Carolina to try and take out Trump. If he does well there, I'll be scared. 'W' was out yesterday too for his bro and to remind everyone of the better days (cough... cough...)
Actually, I am a Democrat. And while I have some issues with HC, I don't think Sanders is a strong candidate. I call it "socialism nonsense" because the RNC will use that against him big time. The S word would be an albatross around his neck.
Again with your elitist attitude! You think you feel superior toward everyone that disagrees with you. I'm sorry. That comes across as really arrogant to most people!
And in regards to your answer, you again assume that all super rich people hoard their money and don't put it into the economy. I think that's a very oversimplistic generalization if I do say so myself.
I'm not quite as down on Bush, but he's far from my ideal candidate. I just wish that Trump hadn't made the political mistake of railing against the Bush family and W in particular in the debate on Saturday. Regardless of what you think about W (I happen to think he's a decent man who didn't surround himself with a good team), he is very popular in South Carolina and Trump may have made a political mistake to take that shot at that moment. It probably would have served him better to wait until after South Carolina to begin his verbal assault on the Bushes, but we'll have to see. It could turn out to give Jeb! even more momentum heading into SEC Primaries in March.
I agree with you that W Bush is not a bad man. He has a good heart in my view. He was just in way over his head and let some agenda driven Neo Cons destroy his presidency. Not the sharpest tool in the drawer and trusted the wrong folks.
Regarding Jeb - I just think he's too beholden to the big money. He's also a bit of a noodle. So I fear he could be twisted when under pressure. However, he might be more like his father, which is not a bad thing.
The problem remains the special interests - that's what is screwing up everything imho.
I agree with your assessments regarding Trump. I think the reason he is so popular right now is because he's not like the other establishment Republicans that are running or ruling the Republican party right now.
And I also agree for the most part with your assessment about corporate taxes and how they should be regulated. If Sanders does become president, hopefully he would push things more towards the center than what they are now, but hoping he doesn't push things too far in the other direction.
I will say this. If it turns out to be a Trump/Sanders general election, that could be the best thing because it will give the two most clear-cut choices that a presidential election has had in a long long time!
In some ways, I agree, it was smart. I just saw a poll that indicated that he's still up by double-digit percentage points in SC, so it must not have hurt him too much, if at all. It just seemed incredibly risky for him when he has a big lead and his MO at the debates has been mostly to coast without making too much in the way of controversial statements. Now, that's been a far cry from his demeanor outside of the debate stage, but he's typically shied away from really heavy controversy while on stage with his opponents, except to tell Ted Cruz what he really thinks of him. ;)
I think Bush could have gone on to be a good peace-time president had he not had his tenure thrust onto a wartime footing almost right from the beginning. I also greatly respect and admire the work he's done since he's left the presidency. His work on AIDS in Africa has been extraordinary.
No question about that. Trump and Sanders (and, I guess, Cruz) aside, we're going to get candidates who are beholden to special interests. The only way that we definitively break free from that is a Trump v Sanders general election. I kind of want to see that, in part because it would provide some great comedy (it'll be "yuuge"), but because it would also show that special interests aren't invincible. I'd be fully on board with that general election contest if I could come completely around on Trump. Not sold on him yet, as he has said some rather frightening things. Coming around on him, for me, is deciding whether he's just pandering or if he really believes it.
Sanders has a need to do what's right.
FWIW. :-??
@chrisisall, so, Sanders is Picard here?? :-?
It would be the US selling out totally to the corporate interests and the average US citizen will get to bear the burden and the bill for the next generations.
Both a Trump and a Cruz presidency scares me, to be honest. However, while I'm scared by the prospect of a Trump presidency, I'm absolutely terrified right down to my core of a Cruz presidency. Looking at how the race is shaping up, you have to take into account the very real possibility that the Republicans will win.
Trying to decide on Trump simply means, for myself anyway, whether to vote for him in order to keep Ted Cruz from the nomination or to sit it out and hope that the Democrats can get their act together and defeat either of them in the general election. It is the clearest example of the whole idea of the "lesser of two evils" approach that many Americans often joke of employing when going to cast their ballots.
Trump is just bluster.