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
And that's what I said on many occasions. You merely....observe, without speaking out ethically or morally. You just stand by the sideline. You 'mildly' favor Trump over Clinton. That's perhaps not potent. It's actually what many down-ballot Republicans are doing ATM. But I do think that's the real danger; just observing. As opposed to speaking out for a certain morale, certain ethical standards and especially simple human decency.
Donald Trump is a known entity. He has been known for decades. What we're hearing now has to be seen through the veneer of a multi-million $ (almost billion $ to be clear) high stakes campaign. Everything is amplified to the max. No side is going out of their way to paint the other side favourably. On the contrary. Deception and misdirection is everywhere in an election campaign.
He is open. She isn't. He shows us his character flaws openly. She hides them. He gives the other side ammunition. She doesn't.
I want to be clear that I don't see myself as ethically or morally superior to you. We just disagree.
You are now implying that I am morally superior to you, which is not true. And I think you're wrong in many ways. You say Trump is a known entity. Perhaps as a businessman he is, but not in politics. Too many people joined the populist forces in such wonderful, open and transparent ways, before concluding that even those apparent transparencies were way way more dangerous and historically untransparent anyway.
Yes, Hillary Clinton is secretive. But I don't believe she's secretive to destroy human decency. Her prime goal has always been to make lives better for all Americans. With Hillary you know what you get as a politician, but with Trump you still have to find out if he can bring together people behind closed curtains.
Simple ain't always so simple, @Gustav.
I don't generally hold my own personal standards up as something everybody ought to be following. I respect others' rights to hold their own beliefs. But @Matt007 has a valid point when he notes the "nagging sense of shame in many elderly Germans who voted for hitler" and if bringing Hitler into the discussion invokes some sacred internet rule then fine, let's compare Trump to Putin instead. Would America like to have our own little Putin wannabe take over the office of President? I don't think so. Would you, @bondjames? Based on what you've posted here, the answer is evidently Yes -- and I can't see how you'd be proud of that stance.
I don't see Trump as any more open than Clinton. He makes louder mistakes, yes, but I don't think he's more "open". A large problem I have with him is that he can be goaded into things, doesn't keep his cool, doesn't stay calm. That's the kind of man who could lead us into something from which there would be no return.
@Gustav_Graves, you are the one who has leveled 'dangerous' charges against me many times on this thread. I don't think you realize how offensive that is. I don't react to it, but it's hurtful to read such remarks. You've said you're 'fearful' of me. What nonsense is that? That's what I mean about taking the moral high road. Have I ever said that about you anywhere?
Ditto on your closing point. Regarding the other I've copied above:
It's a normal human quality to try not to parade one's lesser aspects around for the world to see. I don't flaunt my faults in public, I'll bet you don't either. Hillary is especially prone to hiding her faults because she's been attacked publicly for the cardinal sin of being Mrs. Bill Clinton for several decades now. Trump's habit of trumpeting his character flaws isn't a virtue; far from it.
Wait, so you think Hillary is being attacked just because she's Bill's wife?
The whole campaign has become tiresome to this point and, aside from a severe difference in tone coming from the Commander in Chief, I doubt there will be a whole lot of difference between the two possible presidents when it really comes down to it.
Clinton will offer a more inclusive and seemingly progressive platform on the face of it, but much of it won't get accomplished, even with her party back in control of the Senate. Much of it isn't even a sincere set of positions anyway, as the platform was only constructed in the way it was to get Sanders' supporters, who we know were in many ways cheated by the DNC during the campaign, to fall in line behind the Democratic nominee. Clinton will be much more centrist than the platform she's currently running on.
In the end, the larger, more big picture results will most likely be the same regardless of which person is elected: the rich will continue to get richer at the expense of those of us at or near the bottom, the debt will continue to spiral out of control until we end up like Greece or any of the other nations who have faced similar crises, and the country will remain divided along political, racial, and whatever other kinds of lines because neither of these two have shown any capabilities to be a uniting force rather than a divisive one. The only real difference will be in the tone coming from the Oval Office.
No, I think she developed a very defensive posture over the last several decades of being attacked, primarily for the fault of being Bill's wife. The current attacks are for a variety of reasons, many of them just political grandstanding. The emails are a valid concern, although the defense that previous Secretaries of State have also used private servers is a reasonable one. Benghazi is BS, the SofS is not responsible for the security arrangements at embassies. The Clinton Foundation does lots of very good charitable work, unlike the Trump Foundation. What else have ya got?
For the record, I'm neither Democrat, nor Republican. Certain views skew me on the scale, just depends on what it is. But I highly highly believe that if Hillary is elected, she will do whatever she can to repeal the second amendment
Two thirds of both houses of Congress would have to approve it. Considering most Democrats don't have the stomach to truly fight for comprehensive gun reforms that are favored by 90% of the electorate, I don't see them taking up the mantle for this one. Then there's the fact that the Republicans would never go for this, making it a dead issue at step #1.
But, for the sake of argument, if it did actually pass Congress and an amendment was proposed that would repeal the 2nd Amendment, it would have to be ratified by 75% of the state legislatures (or 38 states, rounding up from the 37.5 that 75% of 50 comes out to). There is zero chance of that happening. The revolt that would occur as a result of the ratification of such an amendment would be so strong that no politician would have the courage to actually vote for it.
That's always annoyed me, too. Gun regulations are what we need and what nobody wants to ratify. Shootings aren't magically going to decrease right away if we have better gun regulations, but their amount over time will.
Obama has tried and tried, but as with many things like this, including gay marriage and women's choice in abortion in the past, it's an uphill battle every step of the way. I don't think we'll ever see proper regulations on gun control until the current climate in the Senate and House are altered. Many Republicans have no problem at all blockading the happiness of the LGBT community to join in a matrimonial union and are fine with women not being allowed to choose what to do with their bodies, but take away their guns and they lose their minds. They are just far too nutty for me, I must say.
* A candidate who joyfully has not paid federal income taxes.
* A candidate who has refused to publicly release his federal tax returns.
* A candidate who wants to ban immigrants based on their religion.
* A candidate who wants to ban immigrants based on their country.
* A candidate who has encouraged a foreign power to become involved in a U. S. election.
* A candidate who wants to dictate who you can love and marry.
* A candidate who mocks women for their looks.
* A candidate who mocks the handicapped.
* A candidate who mocks a Gold Star family.
* A candidate who mocks American POWs.
* A candidate who believes women should not be paid the same as a man.
* A candidate who wants to dissolve the federal minimum wage.
* A candidate that wants to pull out of NATO.
* A candidate who has committed sexual assault.
* A candidate who does not have the support of his own political party.
* A candidate who does not have the support of the highest ranking member of his political party.
* A candidate who has admitted to housing discrimination.
* A candidate who says global warning is a hoax by China.
* A candidate who says he will jail his political opponents.
* A candidate who feels that people should be armed with military-style weapons.
* A candidate who wants more countries to have nuclear weapons.
This agreeable to anyone here? If so, this familiar?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-M7My42pVwv8/VfsDzKTXjKI/AAAAAAAAPQo/yDNHhnBKsYk/s1600/Not+in+Yes+We+Can-sis+Anymore+1.jpg
https://i.imgflip.com/wkh55.jpg
It's because the NRA pumps so much money into the political process that they can control the debate on the issue. It's very much like Clinton's two-position policy from her speeches to Wall Street, many of these Congresspeople have a public position of being pro-2nd amendment and anti-reform due to the pressure put on them by the NRA when, I'd imagine, in reality there are quite a few of them on both sides of the aisle that hold the private position of at least wanting to establish the regulations and restrictions that 90+% of the electorate favor.
If you both think that's what I'm saying then unfortunately my friends you have very little subtlety and nuance in your thinking and ability to understand the most basic concepts of argument and debate.
I'm not directly comparing Trump to Hitler. I'm undermining your argument that there is no need to feel guilt for your actions, using a more extreme example. It's the sort of thing I would expect anyone to be able to grasp.
If you both think that's what I'm saying then unfortunately my friends you have very little subtlety and nuance in your thinking and ability to understand the most basic concepts of argument and debate.
I'm not directly comparing Trump to Hitler. I'm undermining your argument that there is no need to feel guilt for your actions, using a more extreme example. It's the sort of thing I would expect anyone to be able to grasp.
The only thing that's been proven here is a few stereotypes I can think of.
There is no subtle and nuanced way to have Hitler and Trump in the same sentence and not aiming at the obvious.