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
;)
Seriously though, I see that Bernie still has a real shot here.
I just can't stand people not doing their homework before shooting down a public figure for what they haven't made clear when they have indeed explained their positions.
A friend of mine shot Bernie down for saying he'd make college tuition-free, and went on to explain that 'tuition' is a very small part of the cost of college and that Bernie was being disingenuous saying that their debt would be seriously diminished. While the Loony Tunes steam was exploding from my ears I SHOWED her the part she obviously DIDN'T READ where it said "Tuition AND FEE free".
Look, I'm no genius and I can research & find this stuff... :-?
Yes, @BeatlesSansEarmuffs, the usual tactics. It's all so predictable now.
Trump and his lack of plans get holes poked through them by someone, then he responds by either attacking their wealth ("he's /she's not as rich/successful as me"), their careers ("what's he/she done?"/"they've screwed up royally in the past") or their character ("he's a chump"/"she's a joke"). Again, playground bullying.
I think ultimately this is a change election in a change year. The primaries have demonstrated that. The change candidate will be Trump, if Bernie doesn't get the nomination (and it doesn't look like he will).
Once Hillary locks it up, she will attempt a centre pivot, to bring in independents. She will also attempt to paint Trump as dangerous and risky (quite frankly he's doing a good job of portraying that himself) and without substance (again he's demonstrating that, and has done that to date). He will attempt to paint her as corrupt and out of ideas. The playbook is set.
The party affiliations will stay deadlocked as they always are. Those who are wed to their views will remain firmly fixed.
So at the end of the day, as always, this will depend on the middle. The independents. That group will either go with the change candidate (risky though he may be) or will stay with the status quo candidate because she's safer (despite a mood for change). Given such mood for change, I don't believe that the negative attacks against either candidate will work. They are well known by most of the electorate.
The wild card - which has always been the wild card throughout - is whether Trump will mature as a candidate and demonstrate substance and gravitas on the issues. Many of us who are not wed to party ideology have been hoping he could and will do it. He has failed to do so to date, and actually is regressing in some areas, which is unfortunate. If there is no improvement there, he will be decimated in the fall, because the independents will swing to the democrats (holding their nose) to prevent a catastrophe.
If he pulls a surprise at the convention and beyond, then the race will become extremely interesting. I'm not holding my breath, but as I've said some months back on this thread, this is his election to lose, given it's a change year. It's all up to him. Attempts to define him won't matter. What he does himself from now to November will do more to define him than anything the other side throws at him.
I have forseen it.
And you obviously have zero knowledge of what exactly making college free would cost U.S. taxpayers...and what it would do to the value of a college education.
There is a reason why foreign students come to the U.S. to study and not the other way around. You know why? bnecause it has value. You know why it has value? because you have to EARN the MOFO!
Nah. You didn't address them because you, like every Berner I have encountered, simply can't. I have gone over the specifics as well I can on a message board, brought articles into it, provided support. You just stomp your feet, throw a hissy fit, and play the ad hominem card. Not surprising, really. The berners have been doing this from the start, even with Nobel-prize-winning economist, Paul Krugman. Krugman (a liberal, Keynesian economist) has ripped Sanders's proposals back and forth. Instead of addressing Krugman's criticisms, the Berners have made it personal against Krugman. Why? Because they don't get it, don't understand the numbers. When people can't deal with the policy specifics, they simply get angry.
I understand that you folks cannot handle creative finance. Most economics courses are geared towards strictly Capitalist methodology. That you do not understand the basic ideas involved is unsurprising, and that that you would fear the results expected. I cannot blame you for this. I blame the educational system that misled you. And the corporate media that backed that up.
In a newer and more enlightened time, we could be amazing friends.
At least we can both agree that Dalton was the best Bond so far....
;)
Natural dynamics of supply and demand is what governs prosperous economies with minimal agenda-driven government meddling.
Anything that screws with that basic equation is recipe for disaster.
I am voting Trump. Sue me! If he can deliver on downsizing central government (which is a huge if -alas the bloated hog may be beyond slaying, but any effort at least would be appreciated) Devolve power to the states, and get that friggin pipeline from the Alberta oilfields approved once and for all.
Its been held up in Obama red tape hell forever. This would be a good thing.
Trump actually has promised to get the pipeline approved. In fact even Hillary would have enough economic sense to get moving on that.
@timmer, I like you man, but you lack the bold that Bernie defines. A right-wing safe house is easy to choose, but less easy to live in.
See: trickle down... =))
The kid selling used golfballs and pop from a cooler on the golf course can explain supply and demand. I used to be one of them. We set our prices accordingly, based on supply and demand.
Its economics 101. Natural market forces cannot be denied.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/susan-sarandon-hillary-clinton-more-dangerous-donald-trump-a7064826.html
:))
The world is a changin' man. All bets are off. Tipping points are HERE, NOW. Past wisdom is... past.
But it seems like you WANT to stay in The Matrix. :P
There is no reason for average US CEO pay to be what it is today for example. The argument is that the best will go elsewhere - let them I say. There is always someone qualified willing to do the job, and most CEO's don't live up to their salaries either, in terms of shareholder growth.
The tax code has to be reformed, but marginal personal income tax rates on the top have to be increased. Not corporate tax rates, but certainly the top personal marginal income tax rate.
Additionally, some items should be treated and looked at as public goods, or at least pseudo-public goods. Education is one of those things imho, because it is an investment in human capital, which will pay off in the future. Without an educated workforce, you've really got nothing tomorrow. Public transit and infrastructure is another one - these facilitate worker productivity.
I think a few people should be sent to Germany to see how a world beating market economy can thrive with a level of social balance as well.
Glad that you did, though...
=D>
I have said time and again: Sanders's basic framework is fine. It's just too much, at the wrong time, with no real possibility of coming to fruition. There is NO WAY that any U.S. Congress would go for what he is proposing. It would be political suicide for them.
Do I think we have a problem with the increasing disparity between haves and have-nots? YES.
Do I think we are moving toward an Oligarcy? YES (We may already be there.)
Do I think the wealthy need to pay their fair share? YES (Someone like Romney paying 18% is sickening.)
Do I think there needs to be more public funding for education? YES.
Do I think single payer is the way to go? YES. (It's just not a high priority item right now. It's going to take decades before we arrive at that point, so tweaking Obamacare is the best we can do for the time being.)
Do I think Hillary Clinton could be a stronger candidate? YES. But she's also the best we've got.
But despite all of that, Chris, the biggest issue is the potential that Donald Trump could be elected President. (Until recently, it was also the fear that Cruz or Rubio could, too.) As critical as I am of Sanders's rhetoric, I am 100x more critical of those three. They're terrifying.
To me, all the Democrats had to do was go with the safer choice and rally behind her and then sew this sucker up. Sanders has screwed that plan up, and it's troubling. It's mostly troubling because my well-intentioned liberal friends don't see the damage he is doing by making ridiculous campaign promises and staying in this race. It borders on selfish.
Trust me, I have plenty of good friends who are Berners and we go toe-to-toe all the time.
I think DC is the best Bond...and from what I understand, he sent a fat check to Sanders. I won't hold that against him.
:)>-
And Trip, thanks for replying in such detail. After how I responded to you earlier I don't think I deserved it. I can be a prick at times. The Bond in me, I guess...
:))
The reason I'm pro-Trump (cautiously) is because I respect what he could do to break the hold that these bankrupt ideas have had on the right. I think restoring a little more balance to the capitalist model, with a bit more respect for the 'employee' or 'worker' side of the equation, rather than just 'management' and the 'shareholder', is required.
The income inequality situation is not sustainable. That is actually what is driving this election. Solutions to this can come from handouts, or they can come from business driven changes, which I believe Trump is better placed to deliver, if he puts some meat on his rhetoric.
It is beyond me to be honest how you can trust Trump to be the salvation in that regard. Okay, nobody really knows what his political ideas are, as he has never really been challenged to explain them (here we go with the fundamental problem with the American election prosess and media coverage...). But is there any reason what so ever to believe that he will contribute to lowering the income inequality? Isn't the opposite scenario in fact far more likely?
Would you care to perhaps explain the thought prosess behind your previous statement?
1. he has suggested that that higher personal income tax on folks like himself are required (but has not clarified his position- he will have to)
2. he has so far refused to sign the Americans for Tax Reform pledge against raising taxes, because he acknowledges that changes and tweaks to his original plan may be required depending on economic circumstances. So no supporter of Grover Norquist
3. he advocates comprehensive Tax Reform of the convoluted Tax code with a 4 tiered tax structure
4. he has advocated tax cuts on the middle class and on businesses
5. he advocates higher taxes on Hedge Funds
6. he has proposed a one time wealth tax
7. he has proposed eliminating corporate inversions
While the above proposals are 'modeled' to increase the deficit further initially by the Brookings Tax Policy Centre, they concede that they have made quite a few assumptions in their forward looking forecasts (as they have to - forecasts are never accurate anyway) and also concede that his proposals will indeed boost incentives to save and invest in the US, and consequently should also boost growth.
As I said, the rise of Trump's candidacy, like Sanders, is fueled by the income inequality gap. That is what several commentators do not realize. The Mexican thing and the Muslim thing are side shows.
At a high level, he is proposing a more 'worker' driven and 'jobs' driven approach to American Economic & Foreign policy, in comparison to traditional (for the last 30 yrs) Republican doctrine. One that is less interested in costly foreign wars and national building. One that is more focused on bringing jobs back to America, and taxing corporations that send them overseas. One that is focused on renegotiating and eliminating trade deals that benefit foreign countries at the expense of the American worker. One that is focused on getting tough with trade & currency manipulators. That is why his competitors on the right were lambasting him as not being a 'Real Conservative'. His approach is not 'laissez faire', which has been the Republican approach, but rather, more activist. I applaud him for sticking to his guns during such attacks by Bush, Rubio, Cruz & Co. While his policy prescriptions have not been fully laid out, they will have to be before the election in November and also at the convention. Moreover, they will have to be debated.
Ultimately, of the 3 candidates in the race, I lean towards Trump to actually be able to do something to improve the lot of the average American worker, because I believe such changes can only come from the right. As I've suggested many times on this thread, I don't believe that the left will be able to get any meaningful changes through the House. The right, particularly with the support of Paul Ryan, will.
This statement from Trump in May, in response to Ryan's initial hesitance to endorse him, says it all:
"I am not ready to support Speaker Ryan's agenda. Perhaps in the future we can work together and come to an agreement about what is best for the American people. They have been treated so badly for so long that it is about time for politicians to put them first!"
Trump as president with Ryan as speaker could be a formidable force for real change. The speaker is a good man, policy oriented, smart, and respected. The fact that he and Trump have been able to see eye to eye on some things & are trying to come to an accomodation/understanding is very positive. Ryan's fundamental concern with Trump, like mine, is his bombastic exaggerated rhetoric, which we all hope he can tone down.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/why-donald-trump-and-bernie-sanders-were-inevitable-213685
You're hitting the nail on the head. And that prospect has actually just started with this foreign issues speech from HRC. And I must say....it's a damn good one:
The thing is: HRC actually never belittles or trashes Trump or makes the voters for Trump ridiculous. She cautiously states the facts surrounding Trump and then re-translates it into a very simple question: Who do you think is more risky when it comes to foreign affairs?
For me personally? I just adore HRC for her 'apparent' unlikeability. Because that's why she keeps focused on the real detailed issues that are at stake here. There's no question about her: We don't judge her on charisma, a high entertainment factor or a nice hairdo....with her you get what you get when it comes to the issues. And that's what we yet have to see from his competitor.
There has always been a disconnect between Hillary the person and Hillary the politician. Many journalists who have spent considerable time with her have always reported back that she is actually quite personable, witty, and charming. But it's hidden. She is intensely private.
But I do remember this rather poignant moment:
In my view, the key will be who has the skills to gently cajole and charm them into making the changes to support the little guy.
One cannot take a detailed approach. The president must lead with vision, and Congress has to come on board and implement with the details. That's when the system will work.
There has to be a meeting of the minds at a conceptual level first, but Congress has to fill in the blanks. That's why I have no problem with less detailed prescriptions. The vision however, is critical.
Well, you got me there. It's inevitable that indeed the Congress and the Senate will decie if the president's policies will be executed for real.
Who do you think will have the best capability to bring the Republicans and Democrats together and vote together on certain issues in the Congress/Senate? Trump, Sanders or Clinton?
Hillary is hated by the right (I assure you they will witch hunt her from day one - what they did to Obama will be a joke in comparison).
At the end of the day the change has to come from the right towards the left since they are the obstructionists normally, and Trump is the only one on that side of the fence (the right is correct to be worried if he is a true Republican actually) to pull them towards the centre. Biden may have had a shot at it too, from the left, but he's not in the game.
Plus, Trump does have the congenial skills as a businessman to work with people (most who've dealt with him on the business side like him).
It's his campaign rhetoric that has been very divisive to date, and as I've said, that was red meat to win the primary. If he can't change that, then he must lose (and he would have lost one of the great opportunities to make change in recent American politics), but if he can, then I'm for him.
Something else @BondJames. You like Star Trek :-P? Would be nice if you coukd take a look in these new topics I have created:
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/15933/star-trek-tv-series-1966-present-poll-your-top-6-of-favorite-trek-tv-series/p1
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/15960/star-trek-movies-1979-present-poll-your-top-6-of-favorite-trek-movies#latest