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
Susan Sarandon was on Chris Hayes' show yesterday and implied she may consider going for Trump to shake it up if Bernie didn't get the nom. That is the nightmare scenario many dems quietly fear.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/29/susan-sarandon-trump-might-be-better-for-america-than-hillary-clinton.html
All banter.
There is no way Sarandon would vote for Trump.
What we're seeing is an odd embrace for Sanders among the ultra-left, who are turning into big babies over the fact that their Doc Brown Socialist isn't going to win. They're hurt.
But come August, they'll be in line.
;))
In the grand scheme, it doesn't matter too much, though. @TripAces is right, Sanders isn't going to be the Democratic nominee, barring some unforeseen events such as an indictment of Clinton on the email investigation or he pulls off the impossible and catches her in the delegate count.
Thankfully, it seems as though Trump has finally started causing serious damage to his campaign with his increasingly childish behavior and rhetoric. The problem is that it might be a bit too late to stop him and, of course, the other problem is that any losses for him at this point are Ted Cruz's gain, which is pretty much a wash at this point. Hopefully Kasich can accumulate enough delegates in the next three months to at least have some viability at the convention in Cleveland.
http://www.xojane.com/issues/stephanie-cegielski-donald-trump-campaign-defector
True, although all you have to do in America is say the word "socialist" and most are instantly turned off of the idea. Given that, it's actually quite amazing that he's done as well as he has, even if he's not going to win. He, along with Trump :-& , are helping to reshape American politics to some degree.
How much they accomplish on that front remains to be seen, but the fact that a candidate with some moderate to leftist views is the frontrunner for the Republican party would be a good thing if it didn't come wrapped up in a blanket of old-fashioned racism and bigotry.
If he doesn't up his game in terms of policy and content, then he must be taken down because the presidency shouldn't be entirely about one man's ego.
Best case scenario: Trump voluntarily steps down after losing the first ballot at the Convention and they give it to Ryan as the consensus candidate. Ryan/Clinton would be one of the most dull elections of all time, but it will be policy based and very hardcore wonkish.
The public's attitude towards Congress is so toxic that a candidate from that wing of the government, especially one that the people didn't even vote on to become the party's nominee, wouldn't fare well.
I think a better scenario would involve them looking at someone like Nikki Haley of South Carolina or Brian Sandoval of Nevada, which would allow them to pull someone with the ability to do the job and who is reasonably popular among Republicans while also not having to pull from within the Beltway, where much of the public's anger is directed.
Ryan has name recognition though, due to being the VP candidate 4 yrs ago, and is seen as a reasonable fellow across the aisle. He can get the job done if need be, due to his demeanour and approach. That's the hardest battle actually imho - actually being able to get something done legislatively once elected.
Clinton will not be able to get anything done imho. It will be 4 yrs of drama of the highest order from day one with resistance every step of the way.
I am using his own language here.
He's not identified himself as such.
I'd be ecstatic if he managed to pull it off. It would give me a chance to not feel like I'm voting for the lesser of two evils, as I would be in a case of Clinton vs. Trump/Cruz.
Still, I do wonder to a degree where some of his support is coming from. Some of it (not all, of course) seems to be coming from the anti-establishment sentiment of the electorate. That would seem to fly in the face of the fact that he's served in Washington for 26 years. Yes, a lot of it is his message, but in other cases voters seem to be ignoring the message strictly in favor of the outsider status.
Here's something funny: I have never signed up for anything with the Hillary campaign, yet I keep getting emails to "Jaunita".... here's the latest:
Juanita --
Our opponent outspent us 27-to-1 on the air in Hawaii, Washington, and Alaska and it paid off -- he had big wins in all three states this weekend.
Now the Sanders campaign has announced that they’ve raised another $4 million just since Saturday. That's an enormous haul, and I can only imagine they’re going to turn around and use it to flood the airwaves in the states that vote in the next few weeks.
What can you do about it? Simple -- we need 11 donors in your area to chip in right now to help us close the spending gap and secure this nomination for Hillary. Will you make a donation right now? When you do, we’ll send you a (free!) sticker to say thank you:
I feel like a spy now... :))
The problem with Sanders is that he is talking a good talk but has no friggin' clue how to walk the walk. He and his followers are living in cloudcuckooland. I am Dem, and even I see him as out of touch with reality.
:))
I'm not.
He most certainly has. He has called himself a "Democratic Socialist." Now, you might know what he means by that. And I might know what he means by that. But you should also know that 90% of Americans WILL NOT know what he means by that and will only hear the "S" word. So help me God, if Sanders gets the nomination, which would be a clear signal that Democrats have lost their minds, middle America will have that word thrown at them a million times and Sanders will find himself unelectable.
Pro-humanity is always the right side, in the end.
:)>-
May I suggest decaf?
I'm going to bed.
This is what I have noticed: you respond with barbs and have nothing of substance to add. Nothing. Nada. If you want to join the debate, then do so by actually having something intelligent to add. Otherwise, we're left with the impression that you do NOT have anything to add.
What gives you the impression that Sanders could take a battleground state, like Wisconsin or Ohio, when under a barrage of attacks paid for by the Kochs (you do know who they are, right)? The "Socialist" word, even taken completely out of context, will scare off voters in rural parts of those states.
This is why the ultra-left wing of the Democratic party has lost their minds, throwing their weight behind a guy who is...1) Un-Presidential in appearance and articulation; 2. Has wonderful ideas but doesn't seem to understand that there is no way to implement them; 3. Has no grasp of foreign policy. All three will be exposed in a national election.
I am right on this. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-2016-socialism-213667
I agree. You also have to understand that about 45% of our nation believes Obama is a socialist, far-left liberal, Muslim-terrorist sympathizer who wants to take away everyone's guns. Ours is a country built on fear, paranoia, and xenophobia. There are a great many things that are wonderful about the U.S., but don't travel too far away from the urban centers.
The urban centers have their own problems. It's rather offensive to suggest that venturing away from the "urban centers" of the US and, into the rural areas of the country is somehow dangerous or undesirable. Not all of us hicks out in the country are racists or bigots, like CNN and MSNBC would like you to believe we are.
Are there those types in the rural areas? Yes. But the urban areas, just like any other part of the world, has their own share of undesirables.
I didn't say "dangerous" ... or "undesirable."
I live in what I would call a fairly rural area, and we have a perfectly even mix of brainless spoon-fed nuts & worldly informed progressives. :D
I have to say Cruz makes Trump look sensible. :D