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
That speaks volumes about the American presidential election doesn't it? -"The few times the leading candidate will be forced to explain actual politics is when he'll struggle". 8-| b-(
And this is the nation which sees itself fit to police the world and teaching the values of democracy? ~X( ^#(^
Here's a rough outline of Trump's main response every time he's asked about his opinion on a big issue in America and how he could handle it, whether it's violence, gun control, terrorism and/or more:
"You know, it's difficult. It's a very sad thing. We've got problems here. Big problems. We've had eight years with a president who hasn't solved them, but I want to fix them. I will fix them. I know the best people, I'll have the best people, we'll fix the problems. I will make America great again."
Rinse and repeat.
;))
" Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it.”
Sounds more like a dictator than someone running to be a democratically elected president.
Part of it, I think, is because Clinton is so unpopular herself. This is, after all, the showdown between the two least popular presidential candidates in history. If the Democrats were offering a candidate without the baggage, without the controversies swirling around her, and who was just generally more popular with the electorate, it might be a different story.
As for the power thing, yes, many crumble under that weight, and we've seen disastrous effects of what happens when presidents are given too much power. Woodrow Wilson's Sedition and Espionage Acts saw people thrown in jail for ten to twenty years in prison for questioning his government, the country, military, etc. vocally or in the press, leading to massive witch hunts unseen even to this day where men and women's lives and liberties were wrestled from them for their opinions. Lyndon Johnson was able to muscle Congress into handing over the control, order and finance of war to him (a result that lasted nine years), which saw him go on to lead 50,000 Americans and nearly a million South Vietnamese to their deaths oversees all on shoddy intelligence and an irrelevant conflict for the United States to involve themselves in. Nixon, Reagan, the list goes on and on of people using their position to run schemes and use their power unwisely.
I happened upon a video of a guy talking about the 2016 political race recently, and what he said really hit me. His words were something like this: "The best person to run for president is someone who doesn't want to be president." I think that's very true when it comes to this level of power and influence, and how corruptible it can be to specific kinds of people. Only those not seeking things with greed or malevolence or prejudice and hate in their hearts can truly get out untainted, especially in politics. Why this never works however, is because the good people are unwilling to sell that big a sum of their souls to get to that stage.
Yes, that's right, keep underestimating Trump, that's worked well so far.
If anything I overestimated the intelligence of a simple minded voting public charmed by a snake oil salesman who they think, for whatever reason, is vastly different in his actions and big mouth than any big Joe Washington type up at Capitol Hill.
If I have to hear someone on Trump's ticket refer to him as the "people's champion" again, I may just choke on my own upchuck harder than he has choked on that silver spoon of his since the day he was born.
Its a shame that a few more of them don't believe in sharia law, then you might be more sympathetic.
It was a very very long speech and luckily this time he.....listened to me. No foul language, no divisive vocabulaire, no racist inuendo, no bullying and no populist chants like "Lock her up!" or "Crooked Hillary".
This was perhaps Donald Trump at his most nuanced and most empathic. His message was very clear: "Law and order". Although he, again, didn't go into specifics or came with solutions on how to manage that.
The overall vibe of this speech was rather dark and gloomy. As if Bruce Wayne was addressing Gotham City after Gotham suffered another terrorist attack. The weird thing however, is that many people feel like this these days. It's what made the Brexit vote succesful. Although adding a little bit more positivity could have been nice.
We live in uncertain times. And like I said so many times, these times remind me a bit of the late Interbellum era (1918-1939). People vote now because they are hateful, angry, negative and fearful, not because they are positive and happy. So if Trump wins, then it's not just a testimony of how wonderful and good Trump is -because he isn't and he won't make America great again either...certainly not within 4 years-, but it's more a testimony of the times we live in.
And to be honest, that makes me feel very sad. Very.
He has portrayed himself as tough and upset at the status quo. Genuinely so, & after weeks of ridicule. What he did is channel what he's heard on the trail for the past one year from the millions of Americans that he has been speaking to. I get that. I don't feel it because I don't live that life, but I get that many people feel that way, and he captured that feeling in the speech very well. That's what he's been doing all along.
It was politically incorrect, tonally angry and yet consistent. The overwhelming impression I was left with is that he cares about the voter/electorate and is doing this to improve the lives of the majority of the voters. Populist, nationalist and strong. That was his job yesterday, and he delivered on that front.
Whether this is the mood of the general electorate (as opposed to those he has met on the trail to date) remains to be seen.
This is a very difficult speech to dismiss without looking uncaring. That is the other side's problem at present and I'm curious to see how they address it next week.
Overall my convention rating is a solid B. Given what fiascos could have happened, including revolts and violence, it went remarkably well. I expect the Democrats to deliver an A+ convention in response.
The speech is a B for me as well. I related to what he was saying on many levels, but I wouldn't have put it that way - then again he's much smarter than me in being able to read the electorate. I have no idea how Clinton will deliver her response to this.
Very even-handed, fair analysis. =D>
Lunacy is what it is whether it comes from someone giving themself up in sacrifice to Allah, another who believes a man in the sky has a special plan for all of us, or a group supporting an orange geriatric as their presidential savior. I wouldn't support objectification, violence, tyranny or any other values expressed in a religious text or world government, as that is beyond imbecilic, yet you act like I and others would do just that to prove some hollow point of yours that I think you've lost the plot of.
How you see me or anyone else here as a poster boy for Islam is beyond me, as none of us would ever support any kind of behavior that endangers of belittles people in any way (we're anti-Trump, aren't we). We hear stupid and short-sighted proposals and call them out for what they are, whether they involve the suggestion that we need databases for everyone worldwide who follows a specific religion, that a massive wall needs to be built to save us from scary terrorism, when most is coming from within, not without, and more. We respect human beings and believe in an innocent until proven guilty mentality, where nobody is written off out of the gate based on generalizations. What we don't do, however, is isolate and categorize a group of any sort, look at one or two bad eggs amongst them, and use them to represent the character, outlooks and beliefs of the vast majority. To do so is foolish, and disgraces and belittles those of the group that aren't the exceptions of a rule, but that represent an overwhelming majority, dwarfing those who seek to do bad.
At this point, Trump may as well run with the campaign slogan "Ignorance is Bliss," as he and his followers sure do prove it, waving around the flags of a country many of them seem to have no true concept of, degrading immigrants everywhere when that's how we all got our start in this "great" nation. The only people that truly had ownership of this land from the beginning are the natives, not a bunch of colonialists dead set on conquest, so the sooner everyone on that ticket quits acting like the world is ours and ours alone to shape, the better off we'll all be.
Our melting pot nation of checks and balances wasn't founded so some jackass could use his daddy's "small loan" of a million dollars to buy his way into prestige and spout his bullshit in front of a public in what has been the most loud and unsophisticated campaign I have seen unfold. And yet some want to support a man who bullies instead of debates with nuance, deflects questions instead of responding to them with knowledge, and generalizes entire peoples at the drop of a hat instead of looking at the facts and treating each person he ridicules for what they are; one of many complex and layered individuals who aren't spoken for by a few bad eggs here and there.
Trump logic is this:
1 ISIS bomber practicing radical Islamic beliefs= All Muslims everywhere are terrorists in the making
1 Mexican rapes a woman while across the border in America= All Mexicans are rapists/murders that need to be pushed out
But of course this is all coming from a man whose main response to the horrific events in Orlando (committed by a domestic shooter no less) was an I told you so. He must be expressing that hardcore compassion that liberals everywhere are just incapable of relating, if the almighty wisdom of Mendes is to be believed.
@Mendes4Lyfe, to be as straight up as possible here, as I and others tire of being polite with you, if all your responses to us from onward are going to be nothing but empty-and if I'm perfectly honest-tired old attacks on our character as you use your crystal ball to look into the depths of our souls to who we really are, then you can quite politely let the door hit you on the way out. You add nothing to discussions here when you resort to sharing your leftist conspiracy theories and target people with easy insults, the same ad hominem tactics your Grandpa Donald has been practicing for over a year now. Was it really that easy for his rhetoric to rub off on you?
If you leave this thread now in peace, imagine all the possibilities and good you could finally do to this community that you've tortured for so long. For one, the majority of the people in this thread sick of hearing you would suddenly feel relaxed and at ease now that a pestering child has gone out of earshot. Number two, I'm sure you have other forums to troll for easy gratification online where you can spread your gospel about your savior, the aforemetioned Grandpa Donald in relative peace, until they kick you out too, of course. And three, you could save up all the time and text characters you'd use up on here trying to call us radical sympathizers while avoiding our posts to make comments in our threads on this forum spreading your equally loony gospel about your other savior, Aidan Turner. Man, I'd love it if Aidan was an American Democrat running for president against Trump just to see your reaction; I'm sure your heart would leap out of your chest in agony at the thought of having to pick just one of them.
With no due respect.
There is a school of thought, as you know, that it is inherently incompatible with a secular society. Can the two be reconciled? Is a more moderate interpretation of its strictest teachings possible in time? Which takes precedence to a practicing Muslim? These are important questions imho.
Fortunately, as mentioned, it's not a problem in the US unlike ostensibly in the UK. However, if it becomes more controversial in Europe over the next four years, the spillover impacts to the US will be noted by politicians.
Okay, so instead of simply ignoring my posts, you decide to write essay telling me how tiresome am I. You have two opinions here:
1. Grow a thicker skin and learn how to cope with opposing opinions.
2. Stop posting and go sit in a safe space somewhere.
Besides that you're shit out of luck, I'm afraid.
I think to answer your first question, if a presidential system leans towards dictatorship, you first have to understand the separation of powers (In Latin: The 'Trias Politica': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers ). And obviously you know all about it.
Then you have to understand the variations of 'true' democracies. The UK and the USA more or less have a 'winner takes all' democracy, ruled mostly by two establishment parties. It doesn't matter too much if one is the constitutional monarchy (UK) and the other the republic/presidential system (USA).
Also you have the more 'direct democracy', like in The Netherlands and Finland. Where every party has a chance to get in the parliament. A 'multy party system', where in the end a coalition of two or more parties need to be formed. Also here it doesn't matter too much if one is a constitutional monarchy (Netherlands) or a republic (Finland).
The biggest strength of a democracy is also it's biggest flaw: The voter decides. And once a country is enjoying great prosperity and relatively social tranquility, democracy can thrive and mostly chooses more intellectual people to the big office (Prime Minister, Bundeskanzler, President). But that changes if countries are enduring severe dcline of prosperity, a ruthless destruction of the middle class and big social unrest. Then the 'people' will most definetely choose a person who is less 'intellectual' and more 'populist. Then they choose predominantly a 'speaker of the people', and with it all his/her characteristic tendencies (ignorance, lack of knowledge and substance, certain narcist traits)
The latter is what we see happening in the Western world. From Netherlands to USA, from Greece to the UK, from France to Austria........voters are angry, short-tempered, fail to be patient or look at long-term prospects, are fearful, quite often full of hate.
That's what's happening now. And then the 'Trias Politica', the 'Separation Of Powers' gets weaker too. Because two of the three branches of power, the legislative power (parliament, congress, senate) and the governing/executive power (president, chancellor, prime minister) are dependent on the will of the people. Whereas the last power, the judiciary power (lower courts, high courts, supreme courts), are not directly chosen by the people.
And lately, the legislative and executive power seem to be fighting constantly, as if they are in a state of flux because the people are so......radical and unpredictable. So time and time again you get gridlocks, both in a 2-party-system (USA) but also in a multi-party-system (Netherlands) were forming a coalition becomes sheer impossible.
And then, sooner or loter, the people say 'enough is enough' and then they overwhelmingly give a huge majority to one party in both senate and/or congress. And on top of that they choose a prime minister or president that's from the same party as well. And then, if that prime minister, chancellor or president becomes an unpredictable, unstable, reckless and Caligula-esque element, there is a chance the democracy will be destroyed be the very essence of it.
By the way......don't think that dictatorships are that stable either. There it's quite simple really. If the dictator can't bring prosperity and welfare either, then eventually they will revolt. In Russia there's relatively social tranquility. Despote the antique state of the Russian economy and financial systems, they are much better than under Soviet rule. Russian citizens have problems there.....but not as big as under Stalin. Then even dictatorships or other autocratic styles can survive as long as democracies. The big difference however is the matter of civil liberties like freedom of press.
1. You haven't posted anything beyond a small, pointless sentence for a while.
2. What you do post is either an empty compliment, the equivalent of a "good job" to a person's long researched dissertation or (us academics hate that)...
3. A sorry attempt at cleverness/intelligence/whatever it is you think you have on someone who doesn't conform to that perfect, anti-lefty dream world of yours, or...
4. Some conspiracy theory involving liberals and how they're all demon warriors of Satan that attack all that is valued in the world, including to but not limited to kicking sand in the eyes of newborns, strangling senior citizens with their breathing apparatuses, and burning bibles and copies of the Constitution in a fire to roast marshmallows.
I also have some final advice to share with you that an unwise man person colleague child once told me:
1. Grow a thicker skin and learn how to cope with opposing opinions.
2. Stop posting and go sit in a safe space somewhere.
Besides that you're shit out of luck, I'm afraid.
Nice boots.
Melania fascinates me. I'm curious how much yearly income she makes having to touch Donald and act his arm candy all hours of the day, and if she will have to write "Property of Donald Trump for XXX years" on her resume when seeking future employment after this ship sinks.
I don't know how much, but I bet you this: it's not enough. It's nowhere near enough.
@Creasy47, it's a good thing she's there, though. Poor Ivanka might have had to fill in otherwise, if Trump really meant that he'd date her (if she wasn't his kid). :-&