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
Be well, everybody. There are more important things in life than whether or not we agree on the best candidate for an elected office.
https://photographyisnotacrime.com/2015/12/19/los-angeles-deputy-shoots-partner-blames-suspect-both-kill-suspect-in-retaliation/
This, in MY country? Bollocks. This is as bad as it gets. Tell me again how Trump could make this country worse than it IS.
*righteous anger or lunacy follows- you be the judge*
Sometimes you need a raging fever to destroy a virus. Trump as POTUS would BE that fever.
Positives:
He'd screw up the economy so bad that even the damned 1% would be upset with him.
He'd show up the Republican Party for the careless monsters they have become.
He'd ensure a third party candidate would win after his one & only term.
After his debacle, a Constitutional amendment would be adopted to limit Supreme Court Justice terms to get rid of whatever filth he places there.
US Police hiring & training standards would be improved after his reign.
Gun laws would be less favourable to nutcases.
Etc...
Flame me or agree; either way I'm interested.
I'm on the side of everyone who's against both police brutality & brutality against police. It's not a complicated position. #BatonRouge
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-end-of-a-republican-party/
One quote I think nails it:
Have you read Machiavelli's Il Prince?
I have no further interest in finding out who Trump is. I was interested in what would motivate people to vote for him. @bondjames helped me understand. My personal thoughts don't really matter, as I can't vote in the US.
Somehow things are escelating in the US. They're finally finding out why the power of violence should always lay with a democratically chosen government, and why thus that second amandment is utterly redicoulous. It's very sad so many lives are beeing lost to learn such a simple lesson.
No, I didn't. Perhaps I should do that. But why you come up with that title?
By the way, the article I posted answers your questions. It's about the GOP and its demographics. And it tells why Trump is a logical result of all this.
Still, to understand the scope of what's happening to the GOP, you have to understand 'Trumpism'. And there's where you have to both understand the man Trump and the people who vote for Trump.
Anyone interested in politics shoudl read it, all the great, perhaps I should say effective, leaders have.
The article you placed doesn't answer my questions, it gives an idea of what might be at play. But it's very coloured in it's setup. I found @bondjames' posts far more interesting in that respect (sorry).
As I said earlier, he is selling 'Strength', and that seems to be something a portion of the populace is craving right now. He has consistently exhibited it throughout, including in the primary stages and also in the way he has handled the media. That part of his brand is unshakable. I personally believe that there is an element of the population who finds Obama weak as a leader (wrongly) and Trump is a response. This is the opposite of what happened when Obama replaced Bush (when the public were craving more of a calming and less bellicose tone).
As I said earlier, he is also selling 'Change' and there is a craving for that too. Although he has not clarified fully what the change is, a portion of the populace seem not to care. A strange phenomenon. This is similar in my view to a degree to the Brexit vote in the UK. They realize that there could be risks and uncertainty, but some folks are just so fed up with the current state of affairs that they want anything different. A 'throw the bums out' no matter what mentality. Clinton has made a strategic mistake in my view by tying herself to the Obama administration in her messaging, because even though the public appear to like Obama the man, there is a mood for change in the country.
Surveys have shown that many supporters are not happy about Trumps obnoxious loose tongue and off the cuff nasty remarks. They don't even agree with all of his controversial opinions - many surveyed during the primary said they didn't think the Muslim ban would happen. However, they also ironically like his unfiltered nature and the fact that he appears genuine. Not scripted. Interestingly, this is still consistent with a brand that he has been cultivating since the mid 80's. He has always been known as controversial, tough and obnoxious. They have said that they would prefer if he could tone it down because they like other aspects of what he is presenting and discussing. This is similar to my own views.
According to internal Trump polling, there appears to be evidence that many voters who voted for Obama in the last two elections in some swing states do not want to vote for Clinton. They have already made their mind up about her. They haven't apparently made their mind up about Trump yet. They are unsure about him and need more insight into who he is. I believe that the Trump campaign will attempt to shed light on him as a person this week at the Convention. If they are successful, it could bode well for him.
From my personal perspective, I would like to see more focus on the issues. I don't think we'll see that this week as I said above, but hopefully the media makes the candidates clarify their positions over the next four weeks of intense campaigning and debates.
I personally have my views on what Clinton should do strategically to win this election, and so far she has been her own worst enemy and has been drawn into fighting Trump's campaign on his terms. I think that is a mistake, but as I've said before, she's not a very good candidate (in the sense that she doesn't know how to campaign as effectively as her predecessors or market herself properly, and therefore is selling herself short in many ways, while Trump is doing the opposite).
I think the Brexit vote was a fascinating example of power-politicians trying to get back to the real world. Cameron sure hadn't expected this outcome. You might wonder if it was a brave thing to do, or utter miscalculation. The arguments on both sides had, in the end, nothing to do with the real world.
Trump is certainly different in that respect. He's indeed playing the 'strong man from the people' card, even though it makes little sense with his background. But perhaps his bluntness, rudeness and arrogance which made for such appaling TV but high ratings has been there for so long in the public domain that people oversee those shortcomings.
We'll see what happens, but I hope you're right and the American public will understand that change may be necessary, but you shoud also consider the cost. His blatant disrespect for women, people of colour or of South American descent should be ample warning. I don't think that's where his disrespect ends.
I agree with you that the costs must be assessed as well, and it is incumbent on the media & Clinton campaign to hold him to account for what he is proposing, during the debates, during future coverage & during advertising.
I personally think they will do the country a disservice by focusing on the personal aspects rather than a discussion of the issues. If they do that, they will only have themselves to blame, because I think that will only make Trump stronger.
You're entirely correct. Trump is in many ways a response to Obama. A large portion of the population put their faith in him, and to some extent they feel betrayed by his cautiousness. So they are going for the other extreme in putting their faith in someone who is not politically correct but who appears tough and willing to confront the system rather than work within it. It is the system that they are ultimately rebelling against. Trump is just (an imperfect) vessel, just as Obama was (a more perfect) vessel before him.
At the heart of this all is income inequality, and insecurity on account of the impact of technology, globalization and the job outsourcing.
But, dear @BondJames. You have been very clear, many many times, what the appeal of Donald Trump is. But, then, what do you do with that understanding. With all due respect, but, I have asked you many many times here to start talking about...the real issues the USA is facing. And especially, where you are standing when it comes to your own political views. You haven't given them! None! I explained my opinion about the economy, education, finance, social security, social issues, defense and foreign policy. Hell, I even posted screenshots of the policies that I support a few pages back!
Understanding the electorate, like the article I posted from FiveThirtyEight is one thing, but actually doing something with it is something else. And you can start with that by going into detail about the issues yourself.
So on one hand you 'understand' the 'change' message that Trump's predecessor Obama uttered 8 years ago no? Let's not forget what Obama was 8 years ago: A rather unknown senator from Chicago. In a way, he was a populist too. Albeit one on the left (center) of the political spectrum. And one that isn't using certain divisive vocabulary....
Still, change for the sake of 'change' in my opinion is no change it all! And at least Obama did certain things he promised, if you like it or not. Obama's 'change'-message really meant something if you look at the contents. One of those issues was universal health care reform. Time and again Obama verbalized that one of the key policy points of his change message was health care reform. And that's where people IMO sometimes need to empower themselves a bit. If you really want change, you get it sometimes. And that change perhaps doesn't seem so nice to you anymore during a presidential term, but it is a clear case of a president sticking to his words, who's fully executing his presidency based on a four-year mandate given by the voters.
So here's the perfect example of a 'change'-message, with content, that is about the issues, and that Obama actually executed. Now I call that leadership. The problem however is this: Change sometimes means more than just change. And in certain rare cases THOSE are actually the issues!
You know, you again just explain why people vote the way they vote. All nice stuff, but still you give a rather huge sneer to Clinton, by saying that she's wrong by sticking herself to Obama's presidency. Well my oowh my, what DO you expect from a Democrat then?! That Clinton again throws away what happened in the past 8 years -that was actually mandated by the voters in 2008...and 2012-?
I really wonder how much you mean it when you say a candidate needs to talk more about the issues, when all you do is appeasing the populism and the Change-message-sans-content. You know, real leadership IMO comes from people who also have the balls to explain a Change-message in great detail. Not just for the sake of appeasing the voters, but also for the sake of the long-term future of the United States. Now let that be a message that politicians need to sell much better.
That's a thing I actually agree with. But in a society that becomes more impatient everyday, because of severe erosion of the middle class; an angry middle class that basically wants elections every 6 months to question the government (which IMO is wrong and slowly erodes the democracies of Western Society), I think it's equally fair to admit there are certain outside factors that even a president can not solve (globalization of the economy for instance).
I just find it weird @BondJames. At times it seems that if one is a Democrat, he/she needs to go into great lengths about explaining all the issues....in great detail. Eh...frankly, have you actually heard Trump vs. Clinton lately??? Clinton has been dissecting every word, thus every bit of scarce issues he has popped up during his campaign. Clinton goes into great detail about the issues, content and policies Trump stands for - or sheer lack thereof!! And then she compares it with her own issues systematically. Ooowh, and on top of that, she doesn't use the divisive, insulting vocabulary that Trump uses. But....you STILL dislike that? I...just don't get it.
And then, if someone is a Republican, you suddenly are as empathic as Deanna Troi from Star Trek: The Next Generation!! And then it suddenly doesn't matter anymore if Trump doesn't go into detail about the issues. No, because 'the people like it that way'. That's just a load of bull really. You're then measuring with different standards when it comes to analizing Clinton and Trump. Clinton goes more into detail about the issues, tries to sell a more honest, yet more difficult-to-sell message that initially was part of Obama's 2008-Change message, and you blast her for that (Although I like to have a discussion with you about Clinton's own scandals). Trump however, gets the 'mild treatment', in which you only analize Trump's electorate, but not Trump content-less, no-brainer message when it comes to issues. And on top of that, you still haven't gone into detail about the issues yourself.
You forget certain facts here: At this stage of the election year you better have a slight advantage in the polls. And, please explain my why Clinton now is leading Trump generally with +4% on average, when Obama in 2008 and 2012 was leading on average +2% at the very same stage in the election year (before the conventions).
Both Trump and Clinton will receive a post-convention bounce, that can be ignored altogether. Let's just hope Melania Trump can do some wonders to Trump -if you really support Trump. She is actually Slovenian, and she could be saying something like this: "I think I am the perfect example of the American Dream. And I want to empower all Mexicans to do the same!". Although, I doubt she will do that.... And to be honest, Trump's campaign is quite a hot mess: https://newrepublic.com/article/135114/ignore-polls-trumps-campaign-hot-mess-thats-matters
Again, please....read above! To add something more to that, go to the GOP and DNC Party Platforms! Here they are:
--> GOP Party Program:
https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/2012GOPPlatform.pdf
--> DNC Party Program:
https://demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2016-DEMOCRATIC-PARTY-PLATFORM-DRAFT-7.1.16.pdf
And for everyone of us, and you @BondJames, also the two other parties who are now polled 3rd and 4th behind the GOP and the DNC:
--> LP Party Program:
http://www.lp.org/files/2016 LP Platform .pdf
--> Green Party USA Party Program:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/gpus/pages/121/attachments/original/1436484918/2014_Platform.pdf?1436484918 & http://www.jill2016.com/platform
But please, stop saying that Clinton and/or Trump need to start talking about the issues, when the issues can be very clear if you search for them...and if you pay attention to what the candidates are saying. In a way the verbalize their party platform (Although I doubt it at times with Trump). The only thing you have to do is speak out for them a bit more. Because for me, that's what politics is about. The issues.
This post from February says it all, except it is Killary who will ignite a war with Russia.
I did notice when skimming that you were taking some shots at me throughout your post, which really loses me. I told you that I'm going to watch everything with interest and see who does a better job of it going forward, and that's where I stand. I'm not the electorate, and your apparent frustrations are better directed at them than me. I'm not the one you need to convince.
----
In the meanwhile, I hope these two contenders (and strong competitors) can get back to being like below once it's all over, no matter who wins and who loses. Friendship and understanding is everything at the end of the day.
@BondJames, don't loose it please. Read through it, like I did with your arguments. I'm not taking shots at you, I'm trying to refute some of your arguments that confuse me and because I disagree with them.
Nothing personal......although at times, even with these discussions, I'm getting a bit tired of the fact that you don't want to talk the issues yourself, when you are criticising the content or lack of issues.
I'm not criticizing content or lack of issues - I'm expecting them to be highlighted and discussed going forward in the media and by the candidates in a manner understandable to most voters. I didn't expect that prior to now, because it's all a media side show up to this point. This is when things come into focus, or at least when they should.
As I've said before, I believe the detail prescriptions by the candidates mean little, because they have to get passed through Congress and the makeup of Congress can change as a result of this election. Half their initial plans don't get through anyway due to polarization, or alternatively, they create more polarization by being too detailed and in opposition to what the other side wants.
Therefore I'm more interested in their high level views on the big issues, how they articulate them in the next few weeks and months, and how they bring people onside to them. I'm also interested in how they can work with the various lawmakers who are involved in drafting and passing legislation. That can be observed via the Convention, the debates, the remainder of the Campaign, by reading through their various policy positions where they exist, and through analysis in publications like The Economist or The Atlantic etc.. I'm doing that as we go along. Trump has a more uphill battle on this front due to his campaign rhetoric, and the fact that he is an outsider to most of the Washington lawmakers, who he's just met recently, unlike Clinton who knows them all.
I don't really have strong opinions on this at this point unlike you. I'm more curious to learn than anything else.
RE: Tiffany, by her own accounts, she was raised on the west coast by her mother unlike the other kids, so perhaps we can forgive that photo - those west coast girls! By the way, I believe Tiffany has a double major in sociology and urban studies from the University of Pennsylvania, so she's an Ivy League graduate. She also has an internship to Italian fashion house Aeffe , and is also a budding musician. Should be a good speech.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/18/politics/rnc-procedural-votes-rules-committee/index.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/never-trump-delegates-have-support-needed-to-force-rules-vote-225716
All Trump and his dumb ass supporters are going to do is add fuel to the fire.
AMERICA WAKE UP
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/19/politics/melania-trump-michelle-obama-speech/index.html
http://nos.nl/artikel/2118429-vrouw-trump-leent-delen-conventiespeech-van-michelle-obama.html
It's now the talk of the town, Melania Trump's speech that seems to be heavily 'inspired' by Michelle Obama's speech from the 2008 Democratic National Convention. Plagiarism or not, this first day of the Republican National Convention seems to become pretty dire. Mr Priebus is already on full damage control.
And so the start of the GOP-convention is already labeled "Trump's Disastrous Day One":
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/rnc-2016-convention-clashes-donald-trump-225761
I'm not frustrated @4EverBonded, but if only the first day of a convention makes you feel like this:
Then you start seeing the comedy of it all :-). You know, despite her best intentions I think Melania Trump is a sweet and wonderful woman. And perhaps as empathic and kind as Michelle Obama. But, are we really asking too much from her if we want an original speech?
This. Over & over & over again. I'm surprised none of the real Republican candidates for the nomination brought it up during the primaries. Too late now, folks. He's all yours.