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
It seems Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren have been meeting quite often these days. So betting on an all female Clinton-Warren ticket might be quite realistic :-).
To counteract Tracy's quote: "I WOULD go banco on that" ;-)
http://www.people.com/article/hillary-clinton-elizabeth-warren-meet-fueling-vp-speculation
In case you have forgotten, Elizabeth Warren endorsed Hillary Clinton. And they indeed have been meeting a lot lately.
Personally, I think it's a master's stroke of a genius :-). Every kind of attack on the Clinton-Warren ticket would inevitably seen as an attack on women :-).
A Clinton-Warren ticket would be awesome.
It would not surprise me if HRC served one term and decided not to run for a second, opening the door for Warren in 2020.
The vote must be for Bernie, Superdelegates. It has therefore now become your decision. You alone will condemn us to a Trump Presidency, if you wish, and you alone will be held responsible by US. My numbers indicate that Bernie supporters will not yield. Hillary cannot have our vote. Meaning simply... she cannot win against Trump. But Bernie CAN. Choose my friends. But choose wisely.
"Anti-bullshit" and "I'm a Native American" don't go hand-in-hand, though.
The Trump quote? I'm talking about Warren claiming to be a 'Native American,' which is bullshit.
In a perfect world, these events would benefit the left, especially those desiring to overturn the decisions in DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago, but in all likelihood you're right in that it'll benefit Trump much more.
Then again, in a perfect world, this nonsense wouldn't be happening in the first place.
Let that sink in...
The gun situation in America is disgusting, that's just a fact. It's going to be the shameful legacy of both the Republican and Democratic parties (the GOP for standing in the way of a correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the Dems for not having the guts to stand up on the issue) when the history books are written 100 years from now.
The one bit of good that could come from a Clinton administration is maybe getting some justices on the Supreme Court that could correctly interpret the 2nd Amendment and reverse DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago.
We've got 50+ dead in Orlando and he's worried about tweeting about how he's been congratulated for being right on the terrorism issue.
Absolutely disgusting. Sadly, we have 4.5 months to see just how far this man can sink the political process.
I will set aside that this is the last thing we need to be worried about: it will hurt Trump, as he is against gun laws.
This shooting will likely be the one that forces congress's hand to create more stringent background checks.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/07/ten-things-outspoken-european-politicians-are-saying-about-islam/
I think it'll depend on how the candidates and the media frame the issue. If it gets framed as a terrorism issue, which Donald will try his hardest to make sure it is, it will help him because he's managed to trick the voting public into believing that he's strong on terrorism.
If it's framed as a gun issue, which I think is less likely, then it might marginally help Clinton, but not as much as it would help Donald on the other side because the public doesn't get riled up as much for the gun issue as they do for terrorism.
Sadly, and I wish I could share your optimism, I don't see this as the event that forces Congress' hand on the gun issue. Both parties, in perhaps the only area they seem to be able to agree on, are beholden to Wayne LaPierre and the NRA and, despite somewhere near 90% of the electorate favoring "common sense" gun control, they vote against it because they're told to be LaPierre.
I'm not sure that both parties are really in lockstep with each other on Isreal. The current administration has seen its relationship with Israel become a bit frayed when compared to previous administrations. The speech to Congress was really a Republican-led thing. The Democrats, or at least a good number of them, were quite angry at his receiving an invitation from the Congressional GOP leadership to speak before them. 58 Democratic members of Congress skipped the speech, including the Vice President.
I look at it from a much different perspective. Respect for the victims would be finally solving the gun issue that has been ignored by the American public and politicians for far too long. Each time we allow one of these events to pass and not truly debate the issue and try to work towards a solution, as we often do because of a well-intentioned desire to be respectful to the victims, we're really doing them a disservice, IMO. I feel like we, as a country, disrespect the victims of such tragedies when we sit on our hands and do nothing about something that is so clearly a problem in this country.
What good will it be if we're in essence talking about a 2-party-oligarchy. And what difference does it make that in the end humans will revert to fear instead of rationalism, thus giving Trump a serious opening to win the US elections.
The world is fucked up. And we're fucking it up more ourselves........simply by screaming, and not once applying some self-criticism and rationalism.
All useless anyway. Let's keep on destroying. Let's continue the anti-Muslim-fear, so that IS can say "Yeah baby, we can continue our cause".