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
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/09/28/report-dutch-mh17-investigators-say-missile-launcher-came-russia/91210390/
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-officials-putin-personally-involved-u-s-election-hack-n696146
What a bunch of friendly, nice people. Let's make that nation WEALTHIER by building more refineries there.
I think you're over-stating things, @Trip. The next few WEEKS will be where history is made -- or unmade. Next Monday we'll see if the Hamilton Electors can do the job that the founding fathers created their college for in the first place. After that... well, I am quite flattered that people keeping referring to the trenches I introduced awhile back. I could have used another term -- "barricades," for example. I chose the word I chose for a reason. Watch this space...
Cheap rhetorical device, @bondjames. I expect better of you. Let's try to put this into context. Hillary is hated largely (not entirely, but largely) because the Republican party invested 30+ years into demonizing her. Trump absolutely IS more hated than Hillary -- let's not forget, she got 3,000,000 more votes than he did -- because of the things he's said and done IN THE LAST YEAR. Quite an accomplishment in terms of racking up the hatred, I think you'll admit.
So much for the numbers, now let's look at the rhetoric: Subjunctive (what Trump "might" do in office) vs. indicative (what Hillary HAS done.) You keep trying to pretend that Trump has no history of things that he HAS done while not in office. Quite the contrary: Trump has repeatedly stiffed his contractors and declared bankruptcy to defraud his investors. I think there have been a few instances of pussy-grabing that he's acknowledged. The list goes on. But what these dueling bits of rhetoric really boil down to is this: much of the debate on this entire topic (all three threads involved) might easily have gone into a different topic thread entirely, the one titled, "Do You Believe In Fortune Tellers?" Because, at base, that's what much of this has been about. On one side, people believe that Trump will be a disastrous president; on the other side, people believe the same of Hillary. We're all using our various crystal balls as best we can and none of us have anything other than past performance to go on. By the measure of past performance, I'd say Hillary has a more appropriate resume. Neither of them is lily white, but I think Trump's history of race baiting, woman bashing, tax dodging, and defrauding his employees and his investors (and the people who attended his "college" and on...and on...and on...) makes him by far the worse choice.
If I read you correctly, you acknowledge that the Republican Party did indeed attempt to obstruct Obama's well-intended actions during his presidency, and that the USA is worse off for their obstructionism. You hope the Democratic party will not follow the Republicans' lead...that we will be smarter, more noble, more patriotic than were our friends across the aisle. Why, oh my goodness gracious: are you expecting the Democrats to take the intellectual and moral high ground here??? Last I heard, the accusation was that we were a bunch of elitist snobs because we were always trying to assume the higher ground. Now you actually WANT us to do just that? Not that I've ever said we were any such thing... I've been accused to saying all sorts of things I never really said at all around here because I'm evidently some sort of manifestation of all things Liberal in some peoples' mind...but let me set the record straight: We on the left are no better as a whole than You on the right. We can be just as stupid, as selfish, and as pig-headed as you can. So unless the Hamilton Electors, hallowed be their names and their positions, manage to throw a wrench into Herr Drumpf's works, get ready for Civil War, because that's exactly what you're going to get. A peaceful secession by California, followed closely by the other Blue states, is the best you can hope for. Said the man with the cloudy crystal ball.
There's a reason @BondJames started this pro-Trump topic, when there actually was already a topic about American politics.
Anyway, I found a nice image today. I think people should study it very very well:
@Gustav_Graves:
I have seen this image before and think it's pretty close to spot on. But I would move the Fox oval a little more to the right, and further down and make that oval smaller: there is very little on Fox that meets high standards. And as much crap as CNN takes, it and USA Today need to be a little higher up. CNN is far more trustworthy than Fox.
So let me give you my strictly personal take on this as simply as I can, since I was asked the question originally. Mrs. Clinton lost my trust during the 2008 campaign, when she attempted to vilify and embarrass Mr. Obama in disgusting ways. This began when she saw the democratic nomination slipping away at that time. I saw the underhanded tactics she used during that effort, and formed a judgement about her character. When the Benghazi debacle occurred, including her lying about the video, it confirmed this earlier assessment. When she lied about taking sniper fire, this further amplified my feelings. It continued during her explanation of the emails etc. The way in which she ran her campaign this year also confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt to me that she could not have my trust in the office. Her credibility was completely shot to me. As I mentioned to you in the old thread that was closed down, her secretive nature and obfuscation is unacceptable to me for a public servant. That may be ok with others who agree with her policies, but for me it's not on. Furthermore, I could see quite clearly that she didn't have the leadership skills to unify a deeply divided country. That was apparent from her need to run a campaign focused on vilifying Mr. Trump through surrogates and from her need to have 'star power' from everywhere to shore up her campaign.
Mr. Trump has been a private citizen, and a businessman/entertainer. We all know that he can be crude in that 'WWE way', and that he has used the law to his advantage, as any businessman who's worth his salt would. Until I see him abuse the power entrusted to him as a public servant come January 20th, I will reserve further judgement however. He is a wealthy man, and his celebrity is strong enough that if money were his prime motivation, he could have earned tonnes of it in other ways rather than from the presidency. So the jury is still out as far as I'm concerned. I think most Americans take this view, as indicated by some recent polling data (whatever that's worth - not much based on recent evidence).
I've never said you were elitist or overly intellectual. As I've said before, I've been in favour of the Republicans in the past, and the Democrats too. I'm not a strictly Left or Right guy. I'm an anti-Hillary guy, as I explained previously. There's a difference. If you had put up a better candidate, you might have swayed me. You didn't. It's up to your side now. Be obstructionist if you want. It will only lead to causes that you believe in being dismissed over the next 4 (8) years. If you try to be constructive, you might get some of what you want, which will be better for your constituency.
As an example, Democratic Senator Joe Mancin from West Virginia has been on the receiving end of some criticism for meeting with the President Elect yesterday. He was under consideration for Energy Secretary, but that position has gone to former Texas Governor Rick Perry. Mr. Mancin said on Morning Joe today that he was honoured to meet with the President Elect and that he would work with him where possible to further mutual interests, find consensus and eliminate gridlock. Mr. Mancin said he knows Rex Tillerson from Boy Scouts and that he's tough. He said the primary reason that the Democrats lost this year (according to folks in West Virginia) was their 'desire for change', but he also acknowledged that Hillary had said things that were extremely toxic in his state.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/13/manchin-says-he-spoke-with-trump-will-remain-in-se/
As a further example, Democratic Congressman from Ohio Tim Ryan also said today that Democrats need to work constructively with the incoming Administration. He said:
"Look, he won. We can't just sit here and act as if we're just gonna obstruct from the very beginning. He won and we have an obligation and from my personal example, a lot of people voted for me and voted for Donald Trump. Voted for Joe Mancin and voted for Donald Trump. Probably a lot more for Joe Mancin and Donald Trump than me and Donald Trump but having said that, we have an obligation to sit down and find what are the sweet spots that we can find that can help working class people"
In my view, someone like Ryan is the future of the Democrat Party, and not Warren. It's a shame that his leadership challenge failed.
Incorrect assumption. If you followed closely and read the opening preamble and my comments on the other thread, you'd know why this thread was started and it's not for the reasons that you indicated. If it has become a slightly more pro-Trump thread, then so be it. We need some positivity here.
In further news today, it is being reported that several Republicans are urging the Trump transition team not to pick John Bolton as Deputy Secretary of State. Apparently, Former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, former Secretary of State Condolezza Rice, and even Rex Tillerson have indicated reservations. Mr. Bolton still believes that the Iraq War was a good idea, had urged bombing Iran a few years back, and is a known neo-con.
Personally, I hope that he is not nominated as Deputy. I am old enough to remember Mr. Bolton spouting off during the Bush era, and I don't think he would be a good fit for what the Trump Administration is trying to achieve on the global stage.
I wholeheartedly disagree with the fine man Tim Ryan. Tim Ryan is a typical 'Blue Dog Democrat'. Just like Bill Clinton was a 'Blue Dog' Democratic president.
I am rather flabbergasted that now you want a man like Tim Ryan, when beforehand you actually had more respect for left-wing 'Democrat' Bernie Sanders. You admired his populism, and you openly preferred him over 'Strategic/Blue Dog Democrat' Hillary Clinton.
In my opinion the future of the Democratic Party is: Ideas, clearly defined policies, a long-term vision and real support for working class people. Not supporting a man who goes soft on the very narcissist populist billionaire -and his cabinet full of rich bankers and oil tycoons- named Donald Trump.
Mr Ryan forgets one pivotal thing here. It is not the Democratic Party who starts obstructing Trump. It's Trump who started obstructing himself. He laid out the groundworks for a presidency that will be recognized as an entirely polarized presidency. Again, the type of campaign is always reflected in the actual presidency. And sadly, @BondJames, you are a bit naive, actually a complete 'softy', in thinking that Trump will be a 'uniter in chief'.
Time will tell off course, but in four years time you will be quoting me more often. But right now.........what you are basically doing here is leaving out the dirt Mr Trump is already piling up on Twitter during his president-elect period. And we haven't really even talked about all the conflicts of interest the man has.
I am a positive man (Have a look in the Space Exploration Topic I created!). But there are times that there really isn't a lot of reason to be positive.
This doesn't sound too positive to me. It seems rather prematurely judgmental.
I'm merely stating facts. Trump's cabinet does consist of rich billionaires from the world of banking and petrol/oil companies
http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/donald-trumps-14-billion-cabinet/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2016/12/09/all-the-presidents-billionaires-a-guide-to-trumps-gilded-inner-circle/#15cab3ec1b0b
Again, you are confusing here facts with emotions. It's factual news that so far Trump's cabinet consists of billionaires, millionaires and insiders from Wallstreet and Texas. There's no judgement in my wordings. Only the choice of my wordings brings about some emotions yes. But you should know better :-).
A quote from the article below:
"Like Donald Trump, Ike and many of his top aides had no previous experience in public office. Also like Trump, Eisenhower tended to be impressed by people who had risen to the top in realms other than politics. As a result, the senior ranks of the Eisenhower administration were filled with people who had achieved distinction in such fields as the military, business, law and education. Almost of them were quite affluent."
http://theconversation.com/how-one-political-outsider-picked-a-cabinet-67673
I don't personally have a problem with wealthy people (I'm trying to become one myself), as long as they are competent and put the country first. In fact, they may be less likely to be swayed by financial benefit due to their wealth. I'm sure most of Mr. Trump's cabinet will be forgoing a lot of financial opportunity in order to serve the country.
Truth hurts, unless you are math-challenged.
There has been 5+ years of grief in Syria with almost half a million (approx 470K) people killed. Over 6 million displaced. This occurred not only because there was an ongoing civil war over there, but because it was aided on either side by competing world powers (Iran & The Government of Syria on one side and America, Turkey & Saudi Arabia on the other side). Syria and its people were just a manipulated puppet.
As I said in the previous thread that was closed down, Mr. Fawad Gerges, a professor at the LSE, said on Fareed Zakaria GPS in 2011 that Assad was deeply entrenched. That he was going nowhere. He was right. This was at at time when Mr. Obama was proclaiming that "Assad must go". How was he supposed to go exactly? There was no endgame, as the man was entrenched, had local support and had help from Iran and Russia (who were not going to get bamboozled like they were in Libya, when the US launched their bombing campaign with French, British and Hillary's insistence after a nebulously worded resolution). What was the alternative to his regime? Another Iraqi fiasco? Another Libyan fiasco? Did the Obama Administration even have a plan?
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/21/why-the-odds-are-against-the-protesters-in-syria/
The American public had no time or inclination to engage in the Syrian conflict. That was clear during the 'red line' debacle of 2013. The US therefore funded the rebels to the tune of $500m, and much of that money went into ISIL/ISIS/Daesh's hands.
"On 8 October 2015, the U.S. officially announced the end of the Pentagon’s $500 million program to train and equip Syrian rebels in an acknowledgment that the program had failed (other covert and significantly larger CIA programs to arm anti-government fighters in Syria continue."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War#Initial_armed_insurgency_.28July.E2.80.93October_2011.29
Russia got involved militarily in earnest in September 2015, after Mr. Putin gave an interview on Charlie Rose. For those that are interested, the full transcript of the interview is here. It will give a lot of insight directly into the man's thinking outside of the filter of opinion:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vladimir-putin-russian-president-60-minutes-charlie-rose/
The loss of life in Aleppo is horrific, but there were ISIL fighters hold up there, along with Al Nusra Front. War is hell (even though we don't see it on our sanitized tv channels it is available elsewhere if you look). Now the Aleppo part is over and power will be consolidated.
I like the fact that Trump and Putin could be allies. Maybe finally some peace and unity could reside, instead of the constant fear mongering, and Hate crusade regarding Russia.
Not sure about "math-challenged," but I am familiar with logical fallacies -- and, boy, you are full of them.
It isn't a hate crusade against Russia. It's a hate crusade against Putin. But maybe you're right: maybe he's just a super nice guy who's misunderstood. Directs hacks of U.S. emails and shoots down civilian planes, not to mention controlling the media.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/15/why-conservative-admiration-of-putin-is-dangerous/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/11/opinions/troubling-relationship-russia-america-treisman/
I personally have been sure you that you're an unrepentant apologist for Trump for quite awhile. Now I know why. You keep on lying down with those pigs, @bj. I'm not sure that they'll actually accept you as one of them, but at least you've got a goal. But if you really think they're going to be forgoing a lot of financial opportunities then you're a fool. rather than a mere apologist.
I'm not going to condemn people for being rich, nor am I going to condemn them for wanting to serve. I don't prejudge people who are poor or who don't pursue monetary benefit in their careers either. To each their own. If these folks want to give of their time for their country, then I welcome it. Their considerable wealth shouldn't disqualify them. They're possibly higher up the rung on Maslow's heirarchy of needs.
Most of these nominees are incredibly bright (the jury's still out on Rick Perry, I'll admit, but at least he has executive experience governing Texas) and accomplished. I'm afraid I'm not ready to condemn them as 'pigs' just yet. If that makes me a 'fool' or 'naive' (as I was called earlier) then so be it.
Bob Gates (Former Secretary of Defense under both W. Bush & Obama) who recommended Rex Tillerson to Mr. Trump for Secretary of State, commented yesterday that being friendly with Russia is different from being friends.
He thinks one of the challenges facing the next president is "how to thread the needle of stopping the downward spiral in US/Russian relations that is potentially quite dangerous, and at the same time push back against Putin's aggressiveness, bullying and general thuggery." Speaking of Tillerson, he said that having someone who knows where Putin is coming from, and how he thinks is a tremendous positive.
The CIA is hankering for increased sanctions on Russia and weapons sales to Ukraine. Look for that to be the next play (the election thing is their smoking gun), since they were shamed in Syria (as per my earlier post, their $500m rebel/ISIL financing game came to an end when Russia got involved).
Right - Not allies, more comrades! ;)
Anyway I think it would be a complete disaster to impose more sanctions on Russia. How much is a country supposed to take before they consider war as the only option. I mean, seriously, how far are we going to push them with this paranoia and hatred?
Then you listen to see what the democrats have to say about China in the south china sea, and the immigrant crisis, and they are mostly silent, looking the other way! I'm sure if the US was deciding to put armed forces in the south china sea, then the democrats would suddenly wake up and have a problem with it. We've seen it before, and we have to start and drown out that hysterical shrillness from our political discourse, as the American people have done when they decided to not listen to progressive propaganda and vote for Trump to make america great again!
The west has changed an insane amount in just the year of 2016! With this much happening in the space of just 12 months, I think we have to look for a new voice of command than the progressive voice that we followed under Obama. I know that Putin is not a righteous man or leader, but he does know a lot more about the kind of political territory we are entering than we do, and if there is anything we have learned from the effects of Globalism it's that there are far worse, more insidious forces in the world than Putin and Russia.
Either way, I am very much a fan of Trump's position of Russia as a new cooperative relationship, and ESPECIALLY fond of Trump position on China. They have had it easy by 8 years of subservience and appeasement under Obama, so it is refreshing and encouraging to see a politician treating China with the degree of weariness and skepticism that is deserved. Trump is not afraid to use the stick as well as the carrot, and I like that about him...
All the whining about Mr. Putin reminds me of Greg Beem's statement in QoS: "Yeah, you're right. We should only deal with nice people."
He was a bad guy, bj. :-O
"Say you're right. Say Greene is a villain. If we refused to do business with villains, we'd have almost no one to trade with. The world's running out of oil, M. The Russians aren't playing ball. The Americans and Chinese are dividing up what's left. Right or wrong doesn't come into it. We're acting out of necessity."
My point is this is realpolitik. I am of the belief that, despite their numerous flaws, it makes sense to draw Russia inwards in order to counter China. A reverse Nixon 'China Card' so to speak.
With Mr. Trump, watch what he does when in office. His economic polices are more than just 'tax cuts' (which can work to boost economic output depending on how they are structured) and he is not a protectionist. He is looking to modify some of the existing trade agreements (NAFTA for instance, which both Canada and Mexico are open to refining) and his team prefer bilateral global arrangements going forward.
Republicans didn't run Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump hijacked the Republican Party. Now he will attempt to make it his own. I wouldn't bet against him.
I disagree on the fear mongering. Clinton did far more of that through her surrogates. I still to this day have no idea what she stood for.
Here is the Trump agenda for the first 100 days, from earlier in this thread:
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/674573/#Comment_674573
Want a replay of that???